From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 1 07:02:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VK1EG13572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:01:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9VK16H13568 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:01:08 +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 15z1S7-0002zf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 02:52:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus * Lester David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear, Taggie Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal * Abby Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo EL, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Michael Schmahl * Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 1 08:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VLLE913615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:21:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9VLL8H13611 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:21:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (o-airlock206.esatclear.ie [194.165.168.206]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA07110 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:15:08 GMT From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Secretary bird on "Picky or is there a case" Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:21:07 -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) In-Reply-To: <29scTvAetg37EwIh@asimere.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [inline ...] >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 - Nice to see everyone is comming down on the side of poor ole declarer here. I agree with the sentiment expressed by most ... but let me for a moment be the secretary bird. I haven't read the relevant law nor do I know its exact wording (most un secretary bird like !!), but my understanding is that should a claim be disputed then an opponent may force the declarer to play the cards in a particular order so long as this sequence of play is deemed not to be "illogical". In this case Declarer ruffing in dummy and playing a heart to the queen to draw the remaining trumps is only wrong if the hearts are 5/0 and the outstanding trump is with the void which is very very low odds. This is not an illogical line. The claim is erroneous. The simple addition of ruffing "in hand" to the claim would make it 100%. This was not stated so maybe declarer's intention was to ruff in dummy go over to the HQ and draw trumps. Even the best of us makes the lower percentage play now and again ... So could (should technically) V. Mollo's "secretary bird" type player win this case or should he be "warned" for being a nasty ole player and keep his beak shut !! K. ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 1 08:52:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VLqdX13993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:52:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9VLqXH13977 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:52:33 +1100 (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 QAA00059 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:46:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA01897 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:46:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:46:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110312146.QAA01897@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Secretary bird on "Picky or is there a case" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > ...my understanding is that should a claim be > disputed then an opponent may force the declarer to play the cards in a > particular order so long as this sequence of play is deemed not to be > "illogical". But not an order in conflict with the claim statement. Further, it is general practice to consider the _meaning_ of the claim statement, not its literal words. In other words, we deny flawed claims but not flawed claim statements. > The simple addition of ruffing > "in hand" to the claim would make it 100%. Good example of a flawed claim statement. Most declarers who mean to ruff in hand will fail to state it. Most defenders know perfectly well what declarer meant and wouldn't think of contesting the claim. Do we wish to reward the ignorant or obnoxious defenders who do contest it? Of course it's for the TD on the scene to decide what the claim statement meant, taking into account all the evidence. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 1 09:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VM4mt15372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:04:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9VM4gH15362 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:04:42 +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 NAA19928; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:58:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200110312158.NAA19928@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Secretary bird on "Picky or is there a case" In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:21:07 GMT." Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:58:42 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > I haven't read the relevant law nor do I know its exact wording (most un > secretary bird like !!), but my understanding is that should a claim be > disputed then an opponent may force the declarer to play the cards in a > particular order so long as this sequence of play is deemed not to be > "illogical". I *have* read the relevant law probably about 2,175,382,956 times since I starting participating in BLML. The only thing the Law says is "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." In practice, this means that IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT as to what declarer's intention was, the result is adjudicated as if declarer played in the worst way possible that isn't illogical. But it's clear from the discussion in this thread that there really isn't any doubt about what declarer meant. -- 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 Nov 1 14:47:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA13k7310001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:46:07 +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-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 fA13jxH09997 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:46:00 +1100 (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 15z8i0-000NdY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 03:40:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:01:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Secretary bird on "Picky or is there a case" References: <29scTvAetg37EwIh@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 Karel De Raeymaeker writes >[inline ...] > >>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 - Nice to see everyone is comming down on the side of poor ole >declarer here. I agree with the sentiment expressed by most ... but let me >for a moment be the secretary bird. > >I haven't read the relevant law nor do I know its exact wording (most un >secretary bird like !!), but my understanding is that should a claim be >disputed then an opponent may force the declarer to play the cards in a >particular order so long as this sequence of play is deemed not to be >"illogical". > >In this case Declarer ruffing in dummy and playing a heart to the queen to >draw the remaining trumps is only wrong if the hearts are 5/0 and the >outstanding trump is with the void which is very very low odds. This is not >an illogical line. The claim is erroneous. The simple addition of ruffing >"in hand" to the claim would make it 100%. This was not stated so maybe >declarer's intention was to ruff in dummy go over to the HQ and draw trumps. >Even the best of us makes the lower percentage play now and again ... > >So could (should technically) V. Mollo's "secretary bird" type player win >this case or should he be "warned" for being a nasty ole player and keep his >beak shut !! The Laws are written in such a way for claims that commonsense lines are generally followed, unlike for other parts of the Law book. Thus the Secretary Bird gets less support from the Law book where a claim is concerned than he does otherwise. When you say the claim is erroneous what you mean in my view is that the claim statement is erroneous. If the TD judges that the declarer would ruff in hand despite not saying so then he is correct to rule that the claim is ok. In other words, we do not automatically rule against someone because his claim statement is flawed, only if we believe his claim to be flawed. -- 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 Thu Nov 1 21:02:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA1A1Ux27623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:01:30 +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-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 fA1A1NH27605 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-4.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.4]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA19tPB01280 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:55:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BE01D5C.B3AE3ED6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:48:44 +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> <3BDEC078.69441E18@village.uunet.be> <007d01c161f5$312e8a60$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: > > Nie wodz mnie na pokuszenie > Ojcow moich wielki Boze > Wszak gdy wstapil w progi moje > Wlos mu z glowy spasc nie moze > (I'll leave the quote - I suspect it may be funny enough) > 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?". > Yes I am serious. You are all so terribly fixated on looking at cases in writing, but in fact there is no substitute for a TD at the table. How can you, just from looking at the cards (I agree it's obvious then), know what declarer was thinking ? I have often stated that the most important issue in claims adjudication is the mind set of the claimer at the time he claimed. Sometimes I use this to exonerate him while others are simply being harsh (silly claim, so silly line of play) but it works both ways. This seems like a solid claim, but perhaps it's a silly one after all. Mind you, I am fairly certain that this declarer intended to ruff in hand. But I would not go against the TD who ruled that declarer might have not thought it through. > The more important question is: how to pull back > 23 IMPs in 32 boards? > Did not happen, I'm sad to say. I would have so much liked an all-European final. Well, Helgemo is in his third WC final (or is it even more ?) so he's bound to win one. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland -- 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 Nov 3 13:32:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA32Uri29585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 13:30:53 +1100 (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 fA32UkH29581 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 13:30:47 +1100 (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 fA32OmB06598 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:24:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:14:03 -0800 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 Roger Pewick forwarded this case to me (I couldn't get it to show up on my computer). I hope it hasn't been garbled somehow, because the AC decision bafflesme. ########### World Transnational Open Teams - round 11. Russia v USA Appeals Committee: J. Wignall (Chairman), G. Endicott (scribe), Steen Moeller. Board 3. Dealer South. E/W Vul. S A 10 9 7 6 H 10 3 D J 5 3 C A Q 2 S 8 4 S K 5 2 H 8 6 2 H A K D Q 10 8 7 D A 6 2 C 10 7 6 3 C K J 9 5 4 S Q J 3 H Q J 9 7 5 4 D K 9 4 C 8 West North East South Passell Semenov Seamon Shudnev - - - Pass Pass 1S Dble 3H(1) Pass 3S 3NT All Pass (1) explained by South to West as hearts, fit in spades, invitational. for North to East see following. Result: N/S +200. The Director: was called when the 3S bid was on the tray. East protested that he had failed to obtain information from North as to the meaning of the 3H bid.The Director questioned North as to the meaning of the bid in writing. After some questions he obtained an explanation, given with some uncertainty, that it should be taken to show hearts with a spade fit. Nothing was mentioned about the bid being invitational. Ruling: table score to stand. The Director felt that East had taken his chances. [Good ruling, I wonder who the Director was - mlf] Law applied: 40B. [disclosure required according to the regulations of the SO - mlf] EW appealed. Present: all players and the N/S captain. [With N/S and captain unacountably mute? - mlf] The players: East said that if he had known the bid was invitational he would not have bid 3NT. North and South said that the bid is invitational but could be made on four spades to the queen, six hearts to the queen, and no other values. This is the second tournament at which they have played together. The Committee: accepted East's contention that he would not bid 3NT if informed that the bid is invitational, but considered that the full explanation would also include information that it could be made on the hand described by NS.With full information to East it was the committee's opinion that East could be expected to bid 3NT some of the time. Committee decision: weighted score under Law 12C3. 1/3rd 3NT by East = N/S +200. 2/3rds 3S by North = N/S -50. Deposit: returned. ################## First, East's 3NT bid is an IWoG call (irrational, wild, or gambling), no matter what the meaning of 3H, so E/W should retain -200, period. To me it is incomprehensible--no spade stopper, no source of tricks (e.g., a solid club suit). He must have said to himself, "I didn't get an explanation of 3H, so I'll bid 3NT and if that doesn't work out I'll claim damage." Looks like a clear double shot attempt, which isn't allowed by the WBFLC (and CoP), but perhaps a common ploy in some areas. In the absence of an explanation, what should East assume? Answer: natural heart bid, good hand, invitational strength (of course). How could it be game-forcing, when South is a passed hand? Or preemptive in the absence of an explanation: True, it showed spade support, but that is standard treatment for a jump by a passed hand. I wouldn't even Alert 3H in ACBL-land, and would expect a TD to laugh if the opponents felt misinformed. You don't have to offer an explanation of every normal call, surely. East evidently didn't make an inquiry, and I don't see why North should offer information about a quite-normal call without being asked for it (L75C). Especially when the sequence was probably undiscussed by this second-time partnership! My ruling agrees with the TD's: no harm, no foul, table result stands. The AC has swallowed a large serving of baloney. Now Grattan can explain why I am mistaken. 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 Nov 3 18:30:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA37U9P15087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:30:09 +1100 (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 (mailin9.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA37U4H15083 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:30:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.72]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GM7RI400.CVP for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:30:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-21.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.21]) by bwmam02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8317/3518079); 03 Nov 2001 17:23:32 Message-ID: <00d001c16438$5b0cdb80$15d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:22:54 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > >S K 5 2 > H A K > D A 6 2 > C K J 9 5 4 > >First, East's 3NT bid is an IWoG call (irrational, wild, or gambling), >no matter what the meaning of 3H, so E/W should retain -200, >period. To me it is incomprehensible--no spade stopper, no source of tricks (e.g., a solid club suit). Marv, did you misread SKxx as Sxx (due to the layout)? East does have a spade stopper. Otherwise, Marv's comments make a lots of sense to me, and Marv didn't even mention the language problems which one might expect N/S to have. >Committee decision: weighted score under Law 12C3. >1/3rd 3NT by East = N/S +200. >2/3rds 3S by North = N/S -50. >Deposit: returned. I'm not clear on the EXACT scoring procedure - is it? Find the the other table's score first. Say it's 110 to E/W 200 + 110 = 310 = 7 imps X 1/3 = 2.33 imps -50 + 110 = 60 = 2 imps X 2/3 = 1.33 imps A total of 3.66 IMPs, which is rounded up to 4 IMPs. (Is the type of rounding state anywhere? Is 0.5 rounded up or down or left as is?) 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 Nov 4 06:09:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA3J86w17087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 06:08:06 +1100 (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 fA3J80H17083 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 06:08:00 +1100 (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 fA3J20B22406 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:02:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c16499$eaaa7ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00d001c16438$5b0cdb80$15d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:01:10 -0800 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 Peter Gill wrote: > Marv French wrote: > > > >S K 5 2 > > H A K > > D A 6 2 > > C K J 9 5 4 > > > >First, East's 3NT bid is an IWoG call (irrational, wild, or gambling), > >no matter what the meaning of 3H, so E/W should retain -200, >period. > To me it is incomprehensible--no spade stopper, no source of tricks > (e.g., a solid club suit). > > Marv, did you misread SKxx as Sxx (due to the layout)? > East does have a spade stopper. Yes, now it's comprehensible. I should have realized something was wrong (especially when East has only 12 cards!) I received the deal with the E-W hands jammed together, and mis-separated them. I still have the same opinion - no harm, no foul. Thanks, Peter. 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 Nov 5 19:36:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA58YkJ12076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:34:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA58YeH12072 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:34:40 +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 fA58Scw01743 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 00:28:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00c201c165d3$8f104ec0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 00:26:09 -0800 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 NAOP qualification game Vulnerability: none S- J1095 H- A7 D- 98763 C- Q6 (me) S- 74 S- Q32 H- QJ84 H- K963 D- QT5 D- J C- KT83 C- J9754 S- AK86 H- T52 D- AK42 C- A2 Contract: 4S by South after a precision auction, club three opening lead (ugh!), queen winning. Three rounds of spades, picking up the queen, and then AK and another diamond. Heart from West, ace winning. South now claimed, saying as he faced his hand, "I'm throwing two hearts on the diamonds." Then he noticed his (heretofore hidden) fourth diamond, and said, "Oops, I can throw only one heart." So I call the TD, who rules +420 for N/S tentatively, but comes back later and says +450, with no explanation. That was worth 1/2 matchpoint with 8 top, which caused us to miss qualifying by 0.1 percent. I appealed, but realized after the game we couldn't stay for an AC meeting because of an appointment that couldn't wait. Two guys who would have been on the AC said they would have agreed with the ruling, because it wasn't their place to argue law with a TD. I'm eager to know what BLML thinks of the ruling. 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 Nov 5 20:46:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA59kSX12111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:46:28 +1100 (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 fA59kMH12107 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:46:23 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:40:58 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E603@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:40:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >NAOP qualification game >Vulnerability: none > > S- J1095 > H- A7 > D- 98763 > C- Q6 > (me) >S- 74 S- Q32 >H- QJ84 H- K963 >D- QT5 D- J >C- KT83 C- J9754 > > S- AK86 > H- T52 > D- AK42 > C- A2 > >Contract: 4S by South after a precision auction, club three opening >lead (ugh!), queen winning. > >Three rounds of spades, picking up the queen, and then AK and another >diamond. Heart from West, ace winning. > >South now claimed, saying as he faced his hand, "I'm throwing two >hearts on the diamonds." Then he noticed his (heretofore hidden) >fourth diamond, and said, "Oops, I can throw only one heart." > >So I call the TD, who rules +420 for N/S tentatively, but comes back >later and says +450, with no explanation. > >That was worth 1/2 matchpoint with 8 top, which caused us to miss >qualifying by 0.1 percent. I appealed, but realized after the game we >couldn't stay for an AC meeting because of an appointment that >couldn't wait. Two guys who would have been on the AC said they would >have agreed with the ruling, because it wasn't their place to argue >law with a TD. > >I'm eager to know what BLML thinks of the ruling. After a claim, there is no play (68D), therefore there can be no revoke. Declarer loses one heart in the end for +450. So that ugly club lead didn't matter after all. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 00:53:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA5Dqdn15963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:52:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA5DqTH15959 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:52:34 +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 OAA16525; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:43:08 +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 OAA08331; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:46:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011105143901.00ac31a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:46:36 +0100 To: "Karel De Raeymaeker" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Secretary bird on "Picky or is there a case" In-Reply-To: References: <29scTvAetg37EwIh@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 21:21 31/10/2001 +0000, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >I haven't read the relevant law nor do I know its exact wording (most un >secretary bird like !!), but my understanding is that should a claim be >disputed then an opponent may force the declarer to play the cards in a >particular order so long as this sequence of play is deemed not to be >"illogical". AG : not really. First, only the TD may assess the line of play. Second, and most important, declarer may only be said to follow a line of play that is both non-absurd and *consistent with the claim*. If there is only one, well, that's a clever claim. If there are more, or if you think there are more, call the TD and he will check. Here, most of us have decided that ruffing in dummy would not be consistent with the line of play as stated (YMMV), even if not absurd . This means one could not take this line into account in assessing the number of tricks. BTW, play ceases after a claim, thus I can't see how anybody can ask declarer to play in this or that way. Shooting down secretary birds is one of my favorite sports. 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 Nov 6 01:05:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA5E5kl15980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:05:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA5E5eH15976 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:05:40 +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 OAA02839; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:58:14 +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 OAA20489; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:59:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011105145233.00aca710@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:59:54 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris In-Reply-To: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$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 18:14 2/11/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > S A 10 9 7 6 > H 10 3 > D J 5 3 > C A Q 2 > >S 8 4 S K 5 2 >H 8 6 2 H A K >D Q 10 8 7 D A 6 2 >C 10 7 6 3 C K J 9 5 4 > > S Q J 3 > H Q J 9 7 5 4 > D K 9 4 > C 8 > >West North East South >Passell Semenov Seamon Shudnev > - - - Pass >Pass 1S Dble 3H(1) >Pass 3S 3NT All Pass > >(1) explained by South to West as hearts, fit in spades, invitational. >for North to East see following. >Result: N/S +200. > >The Director: was called when the 3S bid was on the tray. East >protested >that he had failed to obtain information from North as to the meaning >of the >3H bid.The Director questioned North as to the meaning of the bid in >writing. After some questions he obtained an explanation, given with >some >uncertainty, that it should be taken to show hearts with a spade fit. >Nothing was mentioned about the bid being invitational. > >Ruling: table score to stand. The Director felt that East had >taken his chances. AG : one could hardly think the bid is meant as weak. One could hardly think it is GF. The two expected meanings are 'invitational' or 'at least invitational'. The fact that details were not immediately given could be penalized, but seeing any link between this slight infraction and the table result is carrying things much too far. >The players: East said that if he had known the bid was invitational >he would not have bid 3NT. North and South said that the bid is >invitational but could be made on four spades to the queen, six hearts to the >queen, and no other values. This is the second tournament at which they have >played together. AG : if they are LTC users, this is about an 8 losers hand, and we've all been taught 8 losers is an invitational type. WTH is wrong with the explanation ? >The Committee: accepted East's contention that he would not bid 3NT if >informed that the bid is invitational, but considered that the full >explanation would also include information that it could be made on >the hand described by NS.With full information to East it was the committee's >opinion >that East could be expected to bid 3NT some of the time. AG : there has been full information. Tell East he's taken his chances and that he'd rather have overcalled 1NT. As always, I'll use the (non-official) transportation rule : give North three of South's points and the result in 3NT will be as bad (and North, with two small hearts, would still have bid only 3S).. This means that if South's hand were potentially weaker, it wouldn't help East. 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 Nov 6 03:16:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA5GG4J18408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 03:16:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA5GFvH18394 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 03:15:57 +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 IAA31985; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:09:51 -0800 Message-Id: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:26:09 PST." <00c201c165d3$8f104ec0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 08:09:50 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > NAOP qualification game > Vulnerability: none > > S- J1095 > H- A7 > D- 98763 > C- Q6 > (me) > S- 74 S- Q32 > H- QJ84 H- K963 > D- QT5 D- J > C- KT83 C- J9754 > > S- AK86 > H- T52 > D- AK42 > C- A2 > > Contract: 4S by South after a precision auction, club three opening > lead (ugh!), queen winning. > > Three rounds of spades, picking up the queen, and then AK and another > diamond. Heart from West, ace winning. > > South now claimed, saying as he faced his hand, "I'm throwing two > hearts on the diamonds." Then he noticed his (heretofore hidden) > fourth diamond, and said, "Oops, I can throw only one heart." > > So I call the TD, who rules +420 for N/S tentatively, but comes back > later and says +450, with no explanation. I don't see any non-irrational line of play that would produce only +420. South has lost one diamond, he'll lose one heart, and he can either ruff the other heart in dummy or pitch it on a diamond. Since South already indicated in his claim statement that he was going to run diamonds, I'd assume he would pitch one heart on the fifth diamond. +450 looks like the right ruling to me. I don't know why the TD originally ruled +420, but the most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that the TD miscounted tricks. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 04:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA5HPUk29216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:25:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA5HPOH29199 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:25:24 +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 fA5HJLw25733; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:19:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:17:51 -0800 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" > > Marv French wrote: > > > NAOP qualification game > > Vulnerability: none > > > > S- J1095 > > H- A7 > > D- 98763 > > C- Q6 > > (me) > > S- 74 S- Q32 > > H- QJ84 H- K963 > > D- QT5 D- J > > C- KT83 C- J9754 > > > > S- AK86 > > H- T52 > > D- AK42 > > C- A2 > > > > Contract: 4S by South after a precision auction, club three opening > > lead (ugh!), queen winning. > > > > Three rounds of spades, picking up the queen, and then AK and another > > diamond. Heart from West, ace winning. > > > > South now claimed, saying as he faced his hand, "I'm throwing two > > hearts on the diamonds." Then he noticed his (heretofore hidden) > > fourth diamond, and said, "Oops, I can throw only one heart." > > > > So I call the TD, who rules +420 for N/S tentatively, but comes back > > later and says +450, with no explanation. > > I don't see any non-irrational line of play that would produce only > +420. South has lost one diamond, he'll lose one heart, and he can > either ruff the other heart in dummy or pitch it on a diamond. Since > South already indicated in his claim statement that he was going to > run diamonds, I'd assume he would pitch one heart on the fifth > diamond. +450 looks like the right ruling to me. I don't know why > the TD originally ruled +420, but the most likely explanation, it > seems to me, is that the TD miscounted tricks. It was very late when I wrote the above, and I neglelected to give details. In case it makes a difference, here's what happened South called for an established diamond from dummy, and played two hearts to the trick. That's a revoke, and the question is whether it became established. While laying down the two hearts he said, "I'm throwing two hearts on the diamonds." He then faced his remaining cards, discovering the fourth diamond when doing so. Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the offending side makes...a claim of tricks orally or by facing his hand. It seems to me that the revoke is established, and I apologize for not giving more detail. The club lead didn't matter, as the Precision auction making South declarer (after a Stayman sequence) gave us little chance to take three tricks. That requires a heart lead, followed by a declarer decision to forego the spade finesse in the interests of safety. I would have led a trump. 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 Nov 6 08:37:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA5LaDb29754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:36:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA5La8H29750 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:36:08 +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 IAA00208 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:39:27 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 08:16:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:28:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/11/2001 08:21:49 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [snip] >In the absence of an explanation, what should East >assume? Answer: natural heart bid, good hand, >invitational strength (of course). How could it be >game-forcing, when South is a passed hand? Or >preemptive in the absence of an explanation: True, >it showed spade support, but that is standard >treatment for a jump by a passed hand. I wouldn't >even Alert 3H in ACBL-land, and would expect a TD >to laugh if the opponents felt misinformed. > >You don't have to offer an explanation of every >normal call, surely. [snip] If Pontius Pilate had been a bridge player, he might have asked, "What is normal?" What may be a normal call in ACBL-land may not be normal in the Transnational Teams. Indeed, given the diversity of bidding styles in bridge cultures across the world, I would assume that abnormal is normal in the Transnational Teams. 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 Nov 6 12:00:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA60wnM05646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:58:49 +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 fA60whH05633 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:58:43 +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 fA60qdw05752 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:52:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005901c1665d$2fd403e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:50:43 -0800 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 Hills > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >In the absence of an explanation, what should East > >assume? Answer: natural heart bid, good hand, > >invitational strength (of course). How could it be > >game-forcing, when South is a passed hand? Or > >preemptive in the absence of an explanation: True, > >it showed spade support, but that is standard > >treatment for a jump by a passed hand. I wouldn't > >even Alert 3H in ACBL-land, and would expect a TD > >to laugh if the opponents felt misinformed. > > > >You don't have to offer an explanation of every > >normal call, surely. > > [snip] > > If Pontius Pilate had been a bridge player, he > might have asked, "What is normal?" > > What may be a normal call in ACBL-land may not be > normal in the Transnational Teams. Indeed, given > the diversity of bidding styles in bridge cultures > across the world, I would assume that abnormal is > normal in the Transnational Teams. > Well then, Richard, you ought to lobby for a change to L75, especially L75C. If North divined the meaning of 3H by assuming it was what 3H means according to his "general knowledge and experience," such inference need not be disclosed. Here's what happens, and has happened often to me: Partner makes a call about which we have had no special discussion, but I feel pretty sure what it means from my general knowledge and experience. Then an opponent asks me the meaning of the call. My answer, if I give one, is UI to partner, who may not share my understanding. If partner then makes a call that possibly was suggested by that UI, we get penalized if the TD/AC finds there was damage. I don't believe a player should be forced to create UI when L75C says otherwise. Also, if my explanation does not accord with partner's hand, an opponent may claim damage on that account. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, mistaken explanation will be assumed rather than misbid. No, I'm going to claim the protection accorded by L75C, and not disclose inferences that are derived from my general knowledge and experience rather than from a "special" 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 Tue Nov 6 12:14:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA61EHx08298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:14:17 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA61EBH08280 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:14:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-68-189.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.68.189] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 160uik-000BIp-00; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 01:08:06 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c1665f$9130b820$bd44063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:05:29 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott My ruling agrees with the TD's: no harm, no foul, > table result stands. The AC has swallowed a large > serving of baloney. Now Grattan can explain why > I am mistaken. > > Marv > +=+ Hi Marv I would not dream, of course, of discussing what went on in the committee's deliberations. The table director was called to the table with the 3S bid on the table because E could not extract intelligibly from N the nature of the 3H bid, of which he was highly suspicious it seemed. The Table Director did his best by asking questions of N in writing to get a definition in writing; he produced the 'correspondence' to the committee: after all his extended efforts it still lacked the specification "invitational" - which NS had agreed was the case by the time they came to the committee - and was anything but a certain statement. The Chief Director for the Transnational was Max Bavin, he was assisted by Guillermo Poplawski of Mexico, with Guignot and Pennec of France. They conferred. It is not for me to say more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 14:10:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA639YH15454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:09:34 +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 fA639TH15450 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:09:29 +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 fA633Pw13985 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:03:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009301c1666f$64a013e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001301c1665f$9130b820$bd44063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:59:29 -0800 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: > > My ruling agrees with the TD's: no harm, no foul, > > table result stands. The AC has swallowed a large > > serving of baloney. Now Grattan can explain why > > I am mistaken. > > > I would not dream, of course, of discussing > what went on in the committee's deliberations. > The table director was called to the table with > the 3S bid on the table because E could not > extract intelligibly from N the nature of the > 3H bid, of which he was highly suspicious it > seemed. Sure, he probably suspected it might be a preemptive jump takeout response, which would have to be Alerted and explained. If there is no such disclosure, it can't be preemptive. If I were the TD I would ask North if he had any special partnership agreement about 3H. Given the probable negative answer, I would say to East: You can assume the auction involves no convention or other special agreement that must be disclosed. If that proves to be wrong and you are injured, you will get redress." Now, I don't know the disclosure requirements of the WBF, so I'm looking in the CoP for guidance. Nothing there that I can see, except that "special" is defined as "additional to what is normal and general." Hey, that's good! There is a section mentioning L75, but I don't see its applicability in this case. > The Table Director did his best by > asking questions of N in writing to get a > definition in writing; he produced the > 'correspondence' to the committee: after all his > extended efforts it still lacked the specification > "invitational" - which NS had agreed was the case > by the time they came to the committee - and > was anything but a certain statement. One wonders why the TD ruled table result stands if the "correspondence" was damaging to E/W. Anyway, based on the facts available to me it seems likely that N/S, a second-time partnership, had not discussed the sequence, except perhaps to agree what inferences (obtained from general knowledge and experience) would be attached to a new suit jump response to a major opening by a passed hand. No "special" partnership agreement, that. Maybe just: "Jump in a new suit by a passed hand shows support, right?" Nothing special, nothing unconveyed by the logic of the bidding. If so, North would naturally be reticent about disclosing what he thought South meant by bidding 3H. It's difficult to explain a special partnership agreement when there is none. If I were he, I would have replied "No special agreement," and let someone translate that into Russian if necessary. 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 Nov 6 15:20:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA64Ji215912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:19:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA64JcH15908 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:19:39 +1100 (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 XAA09801 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id XAA24131 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:13:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:13:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111060413.XAA24131@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > South called for an established diamond from dummy, and played two > hearts to the trick. That's a revoke, and the question is whether it > became established. > > While laying down the two hearts he said, "I'm throwing two hearts > on the diamonds." He then faced his remaining cards, discovering the > fourth diamond when doing so. This is one where "you had to be there." There are two reasonable possibilities: 1. Declarer revoked, then claimed. As Marv says, a claim establishes a revoke. 2. The whole action was a claim, putting down two hearts being part of the claim statement. If this is the case, there is no revoke, only a claim, which we adjudicate in the normal way. (Revokes are not allowed as any part of a claim.) Since it is abnormal to play two cards to one trick, I'm inclined to suspect that 2 was what happened, but I wasn't there. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 18:48:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA67lmO23759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:47:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA67lgH23755 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:47:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-65-53.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.65.53] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 1610rW-0009qX-00; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:41:35 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c16696$8a778220$35417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001301c1665f$9130b820$bd44063e@dodona> <009301c1666f$64a013e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:37:46 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris > would have replied "No special agreement," > and let someone translate that into Russian > if necessary. > > Marv > +=+ from the Russian? ~ 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 Nov 6 19:47:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA68kW223794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:46:32 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA68kRH23790 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:46:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-68-59.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.68.59] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1611mP-0009TO-00; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 08:40:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1669e$bf0c3a00$3b447bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200111060413.XAA24131@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:31:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling > > 2. The whole action was a claim, putting down > two hearts being part of the claim statement. > If this is the case, there is no revoke, only a > claim, which we adjudicate in the normal way. > (Revokes are not allowed as any part of a claim.) > +=+ The Minutes of the WBFLC, Paris style, are with the WBF Web site editor, and with Anna Gudge, David Stevenson, plus the Swiss Fed. They should surface somewhere before long. A number of subjects raised on blml were on the agenda. ~ 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 Nov 6 20:12:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA69BvB23817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:11:57 +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 fA69BpH23813 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:11:52 +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 KAA26155; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:04:17 +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 KAA25402; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:05:26 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106100315.00ac9830@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:05:59 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: In-Reply-To: <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.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 09:17 5/11/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Beneschan" > >Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the >offending side makes...a claim of tricks orally or by facing his >hand. > >It seems to me that the revoke is established, and I apologize for >not giving more detail. AG : sorry, but this applies only to revokes made *before* the claim. A revoke *becomes* established when ..., which means that it already happened. Here, there has been no revoken, and the only question is : would declarer discover his last diamond before he leads to the trick after the 4th diamond ? We've ruled he would, because it would be irrational play. 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 Nov 6 23:06:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6C5Kj02936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:05:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp3fa.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA6C5DH02932 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by nyc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 06:59:08 -0500 Received: from nycmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.29.99.40]) by nyc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:26:30 -0500 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by nycmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA63QUD15511 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA639YH15454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:09:34 +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 fA639TH15450 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:09:29 +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 fA633Pw13985 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:03:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009301c1666f$64a013e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001301c1665f$9130b820$bd44063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:59:29 -0800 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: > > My ruling agrees with the TD's: no harm, no foul, > > table result stands. The AC has swallowed a large > > serving of baloney. Now Grattan can explain why > > I am mistaken. > > > I would not dream, of course, of discussing > what went on in the committee's deliberations. > The table director was called to the table with > the 3S bid on the table because E could not > extract intelligibly from N the nature of the > 3H bid, of which he was highly suspicious it > seemed. Sure, he probably suspected it might be a preemptive jump takeout response, which would have to be Alerted and explained. If there is no such disclosure, it can't be preemptive. If I were the TD I would ask North if he had any special partnership agreement about 3H. Given the probable negative answer, I would say to East: You can assume the auction involves no convention or other special agreement that must be disclosed. If that proves to be wrong and you are injured, you will get redress." Now, I don't know the disclosure requirements of the WBF, so I'm looking in the CoP for guidance. Nothing there that I can see, except that "special" is defined as "additional to what is normal and general." Hey, that's good! There is a section mentioning L75, but I don't see its applicability in this case. > The Table Director did his best by > asking questions of N in writing to get a > definition in writing; he produced the > 'correspondence' to the committee: after all his > extended efforts it still lacked the specification > "invitational" - which NS had agreed was the case > by the time they came to the committee - and > was anything but a certain statement. One wonders why the TD ruled table result stands if the "correspondence" was damaging to E/W. Anyway, based on the facts available to me it seems likely that N/S, a second-time partnership, had not discussed the sequence, except perhaps to agree what inferences (obtained from general knowledge and experience) would be attached to a new suit jump response to a major opening by a passed hand. No "special" partnership agreement, that. Maybe just: "Jump in a new suit by a passed hand shows support, right?" Nothing special, nothing unconveyed by the logic of the bidding. If so, North would naturally be reticent about disclosing what he thought South meant by bidding 3H. It's difficult to explain a special partnership agreement when there is none. If I were he, I would have replied "No special agreement," and let someone translate that into Russian if necessary. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 23:09:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6C9Cr02948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:09:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp3fa.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA6C96H02944 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:09:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by nyc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:03:01 -0500 Received: from nycmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.29.99.40]) by nyc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:21:16 -0500 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by nycmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA61LFD09238 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA60wnM05646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:58:49 +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 fA60whH05633 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:58:43 +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 fA60qdw05752 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:52:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005901c1665d$2fd403e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:50:43 -0800 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 Hills > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >In the absence of an explanation, what should East > >assume? Answer: natural heart bid, good hand, > >invitational strength (of course). How could it be > >game-forcing, when South is a passed hand? Or > >preemptive in the absence of an explanation: True, > >it showed spade support, but that is standard > >treatment for a jump by a passed hand. I wouldn't > >even Alert 3H in ACBL-land, and would expect a TD > >to laugh if the opponents felt misinformed. > > > >You don't have to offer an explanation of every > >normal call, surely. > > [snip] > > If Pontius Pilate had been a bridge player, he > might have asked, "What is normal?" > > What may be a normal call in ACBL-land may not be > normal in the Transnational Teams. Indeed, given > the diversity of bidding styles in bridge cultures > across the world, I would assume that abnormal is > normal in the Transnational Teams. > Well then, Richard, you ought to lobby for a change to L75, especially L75C. If North divined the meaning of 3H by assuming it was what 3H means according to his "general knowledge and experience," such inference need not be disclosed. Here's what happens, and has happened often to me: Partner makes a call about which we have had no special discussion, but I feel pretty sure what it means from my general knowledge and experience. Then an opponent asks me the meaning of the call. My answer, if I give one, is UI to partner, who may not share my understanding. If partner then makes a call that possibly was suggested by that UI, we get penalized if the TD/AC finds there was damage. I don't believe a player should be forced to create UI when L75C says otherwise. Also, if my explanation does not accord with partner's hand, an opponent may claim damage on that account. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, mistaken explanation will be assumed rather than misbid. No, I'm going to claim the protection accorded by L75C, and not disclose inferences that are derived from my general knowledge and experience rather than from a "special" 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 6 23:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6Ck2j04872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:46:02 +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 fA6CjtH04868 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:45:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-145.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.145]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA6CdlB18916 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:39:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BE7DA43.58C9AE3A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 13:40:35 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > It was very late when I wrote the above, and I neglelected to give > details. In case it makes a difference, here's what happened > > South called for an established diamond from dummy, and played two > hearts to the trick. That's a revoke, and the question is whether it > became established. > > While laying down the two hearts he said, "I'm throwing two hearts > on the diamonds." He then faced his remaining cards, discovering the > fourth diamond when doing so. > > Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the > offending side makes...a claim of tricks orally or by facing his > hand. > > It seems to me that the revoke is established, and I apologize for > not giving more detail. > > The club lead didn't matter, as the Precision auction making South > declarer (after a Stayman sequence) gave us little chance to take > three tricks. That requires a heart lead, followed by a declarer > decision to forego the spade finesse in the interests of safety. I > would have led a trump. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks (and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 -- 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 Nov 7 01:13:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6EDBL05583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:13:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA6ED5H05579 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:13:05 +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 PAA19502; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:05:38 +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 PAA07576; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:06:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 15:07:21 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-Reply-To: <3BE7DA43.58C9AE3A@village.uunet.be> References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$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 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that we considered that : 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 7 02:23:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6FNI108235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 02:23:18 +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 fA6FNCH08231 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 02:23:13 +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 fA6FGvh25846 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:16:57 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:11:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, >and that we considered that : >1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. >2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes >declarer suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy >would have asked him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most >unfavorable line of play (barring irrational ones) from that moment >on. >Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > >If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. Well, I'm not Herman, but I'm gonna stick my oar in anyway. :-) I'm with Steve: it boils down to the question whether when declarer laid his two hearts down that was a play to a diamond lead, or part of his claim statement. If it was the former, he revoked. Since he didn't discover the fourth diamond until he laid down the rest of his hand - definitely claiming at that point, if he hadn't already - that would establish the revoke. If, OTOH, the laying down of the two hearts was part of his claim statement, he didn't revoke, but his statement was (perhaps only mildly) flawed in that he didn't face his whole hand and clearly state his line of play. As Steve said, you had to be there. Having said that, it sounds to me like the bit with the hearts was part of the claim statement, so I'd rule + 450 to the declaring side, - -450 to the defenders. If I were feeling particularly draconian, I might slap declarer with a PP. Yeah, I know - six of you are gonna tell me I can't do that. :-) Question: does declarer's "oops" constitute a change in his line of play IAW L70D? Apparently not, if we've decided that one can't revoke in a claim statement. :-) 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/AwUBO+f+9L2UW3au93vOEQKmIQCgx63jI0mVD8FKNl5gjOY67q13CRcAnjA4 KJvqLT15gErF4xI0pNTkvMVa =1vZZ -----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 Nov 7 03:01:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6G0vw12736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:00:58 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA6G0lH12720 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:00:51 +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 QAA29082; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:51:26 +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 QAA23841; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:54:28 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106164510.00ac8580@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 16:55:01 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@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 10:11 6/11/2001 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >Well, I'm not Herman, but I'm gonna stick my oar in anyway. :-) > >I'm with Steve: it boils down to the question whether when declarer >laid his two hearts down that was a play to a diamond lead, or part >of his claim statement. If it was the former, he revoked. Since he >didn't discover the fourth diamond until he laid down the rest of his >hand - definitely claiming at that point, if he hadn't already - that >would establish the revoke. If, OTOH, the laying down of the two >hearts was part of his claim statement, he didn't revoke, but his >statement was (perhaps only mildly) flawed in that he didn't face his >whole hand and clearly state his line of play. As Steve said, you had >to be there. AG : your oar seems to be the most efficient here. Yes, I'd agree, if declarer pulled the diamonds from the table and played 3 diamonds and 2 hearts from his hand, that's a revoke. However that's not stricto sensu a claim. And your 'OTOH' means to me that claims and revokes are mutually exclusive, which I already knew -:) >Having said that, it sounds to me like the bit with the hearts was >part of the claim statement, so I'd rule + 450 to the declaring side, >- -450 to the defenders. If I were feeling particularly draconian, I >might slap declarer with a PP. Yeah, I know - six of you are gonna >tell me I can't do that. :-) AG : of course you can - see the verbal form 'should' in L68 C, and 'should' paragraph of prolegomena (it feels more and more like it would be a good idea to number the prolegomena ; what about L0A, L0B etc ?). They say 'a procedural penalty will seldom be applied', which means it's harsh and perhaps limited to repeated offences, but they don't say 'a procedural penalty will never be applied'. Blame the sextet, whoever they are. 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 Nov 7 03:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6GDb215008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:13:37 +1100 (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 fA6GDVH14989 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:13:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-99-20.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.99.20] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 1618ky-000LIh-00; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 16:07:21 +0000 Message-ID: <004101c166dc$fcc51fe0$47447bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <005b01c1640e$795ad440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001301c1665f$9130b820$bd44063e@dodona> <009301c1666f$64a013e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:15:21 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: 06 November 2001 02:59 Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > My ruling agrees with the TD's: no harm, no foul, > > > table result stands. The AC has swallowed a large > > > serving of baloney. Now Grattan can explain why > > > I am mistaken. > > > > > I would not dream, of course, of discussing > > what went on in the committee's deliberations. > > The table director was called to the table with > > the 3S bid on the table because E could not > > extract intelligibly from N the nature of the > > 3H bid, of which he was highly suspicious it > > seemed. > > Sure, he probably suspected it might be a preemptive jump takeout > response, which would have to be Alerted and explained. If there is > no such disclosure, it can't be preemptive. If I were the TD I would > ask North if he had any special partnership agreement about 3H. > Given the probable negative answer, I would say to East: You can > assume the auction involves no convention or other special agreement > that must be disclosed. If that proves to be wrong and you are > injured, you will get redress." > > Now, I don't know the disclosure requirements of the WBF, so I'm > looking in the CoP for guidance. Nothing there that I can see, > except that "special" is defined as "additional to what is normal > and general." Hey, that's good! There is a section mentioning L75, > but I don't see its applicability in this case. > > > The Table Director did his best by > > asking questions of N in writing to get a > > definition in writing; he produced the > > 'correspondence' to the committee: after all his > > extended efforts it still lacked the specification > > "invitational" - which NS had agreed was the case > > by the time they came to the committee - and > > was anything but a certain statement. > > One wonders why the TD ruled table result stands if the > "correspondence" was damaging to E/W. Anyway, based on the facts > available to me it seems likely that N/S, a second-time partnership, > had not discussed the sequence, except perhaps to agree what > inferences (obtained from general knowledge and experience) would be > attached to a new suit jump response to a major opening by a passed > hand. No "special" partnership agreement, that. Maybe just: "Jump in > a new suit by a passed hand shows support, right?" Nothing special, > nothing unconveyed by the logic of the bidding. > > If so, North would naturally be reticent about disclosing what he > thought South meant by bidding 3H. It's difficult to explain a > special partnership agreement when there is none. If I were he, I > would have replied "No special agreement," and let someone translate > that into Russian if necessary. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 7 03:25:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6GPNX15169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:25:23 +1100 (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 fA6GPHH15165 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:25:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-42-157.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.42.157] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 1618wP-000OlV-00; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 16:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c166de$a2fdcf00$9d2a7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com><002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:16:42 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Sent: 06 November 2001 14:07 Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of > problem before, and that we considered that : > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. >>> +=+ See minutes, 1st Nov. 2001, item 3, of the WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 7 06:14:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6JDj723035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 06:13:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f65.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.65]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA6JDeH23031 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 06:13:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:07:14 -0800 Received: from 172.131.21.206 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2001 19:07:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.131.21.206] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:07:14 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2001 19:07:14.0379 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EBF31B0:01C166F6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" >, "Alain Gottcheiner" >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling >Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:16:42 -0000 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Sent: 06 November 2001 14:07 >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling > > > > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of > > problem before, and that we considered that : > > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > >>> >+=+ See minutes, 1st Nov. 2001, item 3, of the >WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ A URL or direct cite would be useful. -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 Wed Nov 7 07:21:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6KKci23097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 07:20:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA6KKVH23092 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 07:20:31 +1100 (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 fA6KEQB21947 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:14:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004001c166ff$8682d7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106100315.00ac9830@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:06:18 -0800 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: > > > >Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the > >offending side makes...a claim of tricks orally or by facing his > >hand. > > > >It seems to me that the revoke is established, and I apologize for > >not giving more detail. > > AG : sorry, but this applies only to revokes made *before* the claim. A > revoke *becomes* established when ..., which means that it already happened. > Here, there has been no revoke, and the only question is : would declarer > discover his last diamond before he leads to the trick after the 4th > diamond ? We've ruled he would, because it would be irrational play. > Sorry, but he clearly would not have discovered his diamond until about to play the second heart on a diamond. Too late, revoke established. I guess you had to be there. The diamond was stuck under the ace of spades when he faced those cards, and the process of facing them revealed that. Had there been no claim, the diamond would not have been seen until too late. On another plane, I fail to see why a claimer's statement that he plans to revoke makes a revoke irrational rather than just careless. 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 Nov 7 08:30:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA6LTS324451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:29:28 +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 fA6LTHH24427 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:29:18 +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 fA6LLun05586; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:21:56 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011106151133.00a20060@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 15:22:19 -0600 To: Ed Reppert From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@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 10:11 AM 11/6/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, > >and that we considered that : > >1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > >2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes > >declarer suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy > >would have asked him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most > >unfavorable line of play (barring irrational ones) from that moment > >on. > >Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > > >If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > >Well, I'm not Herman, but I'm gonna stick my oar in anyway. :-) > >I'm with Steve: it boils down to the question whether when declarer >laid his two hearts down that was a play to a diamond lead, or part >of his claim statement. If it was the former, he revoked. Since he >didn't discover the fourth diamond until he laid down the rest of his >hand - definitely claiming at that point, if he hadn't already - that >would establish the revoke. If, OTOH, the laying down of the two >hearts was part of his claim statement, he didn't revoke, but his >statement was (perhaps only mildly) flawed in that he didn't face his >whole hand and clearly state his line of play. As Steve said, you had >to be there. I completely agree with this answer. If the TD establishes that the revoke occurred on trick n [I can't remember now which it was] and the attempt to claim began for trick n+1, then the claim established the revoke. The fact that he laid down two hearts together strongly indicates that he was 'facing his hand' in segments, rather than playing to the current trick, so I would almost certainly rule that the revoke had not occurred--he was claiming, not following to the trick. The DeWael/Sterling principle says that if declarer's claim statement clearly indicates that declarer would have revoked had the hand been played out (or taken any other irrational line), then the hand must be adjudicated given a revoke-- "irrational" only comes into play when adjudicating lines of play _different from_ declarer's original stated line. We clearly allow, nay _demand_ that declarer be held to an irrational line if it is clearly stated in his claim statement, so there's no reason for revokes to be any different. If Herman and I ruled the [bridge] world, you might very well get your tricks, Marv. OTOH, the DeWael/Sterling principle has been explicitly refuted by the WBFLC, so to rule in this way would be insurrection. Given the official interpretation of the law, you must rule +450 on this hand unless you really think the heart play was following suit and not claiming. >Having said that, it sounds to me like the bit with the hearts was >part of the claim statement, so I'd rule + 450 to the declaring side, >- -450 to the defenders. If I were feeling particularly draconian, I >might slap declarer with a PP. Yeah, I know - six of you are gonna >tell me I can't do that. :-) No, I think you _can_ do that but definately shouldn't. >Question: does declarer's "oops" constitute a change in his line of >play IAW L70D? Apparently not, if we've decided that one can't revoke >in a claim statement. :-) I think it doesn't matter, since there's no non-irrational line yielding fewer tricks. I think Marv has a better chance of getting a good ruling if he convinces me that the "oops" _wasn't_ a change than if it was. :) >Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant, the non-rebellous -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 7 11:35:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA70Yl901417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:34:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA70YfH01413 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:34:42 +1100 (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 TAA09312 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA01184 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:28:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:28:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111070028.TAA01184@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > We clearly allow, nay _demand_ that > declarer be held to an irrational line if it is > clearly stated in his claim statement, so there's no > reason for revokes to be any different. Well, Law (44B??? -- the one that takes precedence over all other laws) might be a reason. I'll be interested in what the WBFLC had to say. Has anyone posted a URL for the Paris minutes yet? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 7 14:39:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA73c5B04328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:38:05 +1100 (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 fA73bxH04324 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:38:00 +1100 (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 fA73VsB17315 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:31:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d001c1673c$95a1eb80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011106151133.00a20060@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:27:08 -0800 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 > OTOH, the DeWael/Sterling principle has been > explicitly refuted by the WBFLC, so to rule in this way > would be insurrection. Where can I read this? Do you know? > Given the official interpretation > of the law, you must rule +450 on this hand unless you > really think the heart play was following suit and not > claiming. > Yeah, even if 100% certain that the revoke would have occurred if we could say "Please play it out." I don't know exactly what the WBFLC said, but I'm sure it didn't cancel L70A, which surely allows a TD to make that finding when he is convinced of its truth. 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 Nov 7 18:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA76xXB10517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:59:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA76xSH10513 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:59:28 +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 SAA25042 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:02:47 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 17:39:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:29:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/11/2001 05:45:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >> What may be a normal call in ACBL-land may not be >> normal in the Transnational Teams. Indeed, given >> the diversity of bidding styles in bridge cultures >> across the world, I would assume that abnormal is >> normal in the Transnational Teams. Marv replied: >Well then, Richard, you ought to lobby for a change >to L75, especially L75C. If North divined the meaning >of 3H by assuming it was what 3H means according to >his "general knowledge and experience," such >inference need not be disclosed. [snip] We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. I agree that *inferences* drawn through "general knowledge and experience" need not be disclosed. If North-South had no agreement on the meaning of 3H, then the appeal should have failed. However, on the facts as presented, North-South did have some sort of agreement, and under L75C partnership *agreements* do need to be disclosed. It is true that failure to disclose a "normal" partnership agreement is unlikely to cause damage. It is also true that invitational to game fit-showing jumps by a passed hand may be "normal" in ACBL-land. But in the Transnational Teams, there are a diversity of bidding styles (compared to the monochrome bidding style encouraged in ACBL-land). Therefore, I stand by my thesis that there is no default "normal" meaning for a passed hand jump-shift in that event. As a consequence, I believe that the AC decision was correct. 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 Nov 8 00:41:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7DcT512215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:38:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7DcLH12211 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:38:23 +1100 (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 161SoI-000Fk5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 13:32:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:16:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>+=+ See minutes, 1st Nov. 2001, item 3, of the >>WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ > > A URL or direct cite would be useful. Give us a little time, please! --------------------- willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes >I'll be interested in what the WBFLC had to say. Has anyone posted a >URL for the Paris minutes yet? Not yet. -- 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 Thu Nov 8 00:58:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7DulK12237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:56:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7DueH12233 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.108]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA7DoVT26006 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:50:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 11:36:52 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@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 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do > >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the > >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks > >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, > >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 > >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to > >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus > >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that > we considered that : > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer > suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked > him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play > (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. > Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > Because the second time round, Marv told us that two tricks were played (with hearts discarded on diamonds) - so there is a revoke. In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a 2-trick penalty. Of course all in the framework of Marv's second version. -- 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 Nov 8 01:49:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7ElXW12266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 01:47:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA7ElSH12262 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 01:47:28 +1100 (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 JAA06893 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:41:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA08360 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:41:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:41:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111071441.JAA08360@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Paris minutes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The WBFLC minutes from Paris, courtesy of Grattan, are available at ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/outgoing/willner/blml/paris.txt The minutes are in four segments stuck together, but the separate segments are in the same directory as m1.txt, m2.txt, etc. The full minutes are only 16 kB, so you probably just want that file. They will be at the above URL for at most 2 weeks; less if they get posted somewhere else first. Thanks, Grattan. P.S. I have read only the first segment so far. BLML regulars will recognize quite a few of the topics and will see that the WBFLC conclusions are not always the same as the ones reached on BLML. I don't have any objection to that, but where the language is such that reasonable people can reach different conclusions, then: 1. If a uniform worldwide interpretation is desired, the various NCBO's will have to ensure that the WBFLC interpretations are widely disseminated. (BLML is useful, but it is no substitute for official circulars.) 2. The drafting committee should consider clarifying the language in future Laws editions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 02:20:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7FHIt13256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 02:17:18 +1100 (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 fA7FHCH13235 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 02:17:13 +1100 (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 KAA08794 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA08390 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:10:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:10:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111071510.KAA08390@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Grant Sterling > > We clearly allow, nay _demand_ that > > declarer be held to an irrational line if it is > > clearly stated in his claim statement, so there's no > > reason for revokes to be any different. > > Well, Law (44B??? -- the one that takes precedence over all other laws) > might be a reason. Sorry, that should have been 44C. I didn't have an easy way to check at the time. (Actually I wrote 44C at first, decided it didn't look right, and substituted B. Goes to show something or other, I guess.) Sorry for the confusion. Here's what the WBFLC had to say: 3. The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. At first glance, I couldn't think what other kind of irregularity there could be, but leading from the wrong hand might be an example. "Win the heart with dummy's ace, then cash spades in hand," (with no entry to the spades). No doubt there are additional possibilities. The LC didn't address irrational but legal plays as part of a claim statement, but I think we all agree on those. (Follow the claim statement even if irrational.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 03:07:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7G75T21861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:07:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA7G6xH21831 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:07:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from sam ([63.202.234.128]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMF00MSXTTE1M@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 08:00:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 08:01:00 -0800 From: jaycue@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_16H] Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do > >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the > >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks > >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, > >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 > >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to > >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus > >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that > we considered that : > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer > suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked > him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play > (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. > Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > Herman DE WAEL wrote: Because the second time round, Marv told us that two tricks were played (with hearts discarded on diamonds) - so there is a revoke. In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a 2-trick penalty. Of course all in the framework of Marv's second version. The tournament director told me, immediately after the game, that a claim was made, cards faced, and a line of play was stated that included saying he was pitching hearts on diamonds. During the statement, he realized he had a diamond. He had not played the diamonds before making his claim. Of course, in our club, most players are "nervous" when making a claim against Marvin, because of Marvin's frequent "yelling" for the director, his condescending tone at the table when the director arrives, and the usual extremes of detail that "might have been". The director then, tries to reconstruct the facts, as to what really happened at the table. Most times this gets interesting:-) Thanks, Tom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 03:23:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7GN0d24647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:23:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA7GMqH24628 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:22:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-63-93.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.63.93] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 161VM1-000MnR-00; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:15:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c167a7$74b801a0$5d3f7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200111071441.JAA08360@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris minutes Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:40:30 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 07 November 2001 14:41 Subject: [BLML] Paris minutes > > 2. The drafting committee should consider > clarifying the language in future Laws editions. >> +=+ I have a personal commitment to this (and I am not alone). ~ 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 Nov 8 03:23:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7GN2P24653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:23:03 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA7GMrH24631 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-63-93.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.63.93] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 161VM2-000MnR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:15:06 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c167a7$75677b80$5d3f7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:11:48 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 07 November 2001 07:29 Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris > > > It is true that failure to disclose a "normal" > partnership agreement is unlikely to cause damage. It > is also true that invitational to game fit-showing > jumps by a passed hand may be "normal" in ACBL-land. > > But in the Transnational Teams, there are a diversity > of bidding styles (compared to the monochrome bidding > style encouraged in ACBL-land). > +=+ Speaking as to principle and aside from the appeal in question, this is right. It explains the additional stress given to disclosure at international level. No-one can assume for sure what they assume at home. This is recognized by some of the foremost teams in Europe and in the US. These teams pursue questions of meaning and disclosure with great vigour when they perceive uncertainties, and they do not wish the authorities to be tolerant of sloppy disclosure. ~ 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 Nov 8 03:42:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7GfmM24813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:41:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7GfhH24809 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 03:41:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([147.11.36.215]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA20750 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Paris minutes Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:35:02 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01c167aa$264d83c0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200111071441.JAA08360@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The WBFLC minutes from Paris, courtesy of Grattan, are available at > ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/outgoing/willner/blml/paris.txt > > The minutes are in four segments stuck together, but the separate > segments are in the same directory as m1.txt, m2.txt, etc. The > full minutes are only 16 kB, so you probably just want that file. > > They will be at the above URL for at most 2 weeks; less if they get > posted somewhere else first. > > Thanks, Grattan. Hi All Thanks so much for posting the minutes for the meetings. Quick question: In the minutes there was a reference to a paper on psychic action. "9. A paper on psychic action prepared by the Secretary was referred to the Systems Committee." Is there any chance that this paper might be circulated more widely? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO+littZbGc4pZHvJEQJqyACg0JQ6oSSQr0n8Ho6ZjDRjXzmr6rYAn28n x2TGNjVrtn1bQ0v5SCQzmw5z =YJJ1 -----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 Nov 8 05:34:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7IXlj24870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:33:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7IXfH24866 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:33:42 +1100 (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 fA7IRZB27240 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:27:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003d01c167b9$c39028e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:26:44 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do > > >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the > > >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks > > >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, > > >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 > > >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to > > >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus > > >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 > > > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that > > we considered that : > > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > > 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer > > suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked > > him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play > > (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. > > Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > > > If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > > > > Because the second time round, Marv told us that two tricks > were played (with hearts discarded on diamonds) - so there > is a revoke. Did I ssy two tricks? No, two hearts were played to one trick, followed by the claim statement. What I first wrote was: South now claimed, saying as he faced his hand, "I'm throwing two hearts on the diamonds." Then he noticed his (heretofore hidden) fourth diamond, and said, "Oops, I can throw only one heart." That didn't communicate the situation, so I wrote next (not contradicting, I thought, but clarifying): South called for an established diamond from dummy, and played two hearts to the trick. That's a revoke, and the question is whether it became established. *After* laying down the two hearts he said, "I'm throwing two hearts on the diamonds." He then faced his remaining cards, discovering the fourth diamond behind the ace of spades when doing so. It was clear to me that he definitely intended to play the second heart on the next diamond lead from dummy, and was just claiming in order to hurry things along. > In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of > diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make > one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a > 2-trick penalty. No Herman, declarer won the revoke trick, so a two-trick penalty applies regardless. It was the 2. Did the WBFLC say otherwise in its interpretation? I have to study it for a while. 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 Nov 8 06:14:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7JDwh24901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:13:58 +1100 (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 fA7JDrH24897 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:13:53 +1100 (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 fA7J7kB23339 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:07:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:02:00 -0800 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: > > I wrote: > > [snip] > > >> What may be a normal call in ACBL-land may not be > >> normal in the Transnational Teams. Indeed, given > >> the diversity of bidding styles in bridge cultures > >> across the world, I would assume that abnormal is > >> normal in the Transnational Teams. > > Marv replied: > > >Well then, Richard, you ought to lobby for a change > >to L75, especially L75C. If North divined the meaning > >of 3H by assuming it was what 3H means according to > >his "general knowledge and experience," such > >inference need not be disclosed. > > [snip] > > We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. I agree that > *inferences* drawn through "general knowledge and > experience" need not be disclosed. If North-South had > no agreement on the meaning of 3H, then the appeal > should have failed. > > However, on the facts as presented, North-South did > have some sort of agreement, and under L75C partnership > *agreements* do need to be disclosed. Only SPECIAL partnership agreements! Excuse me for shouting. The CoP defines "special" as "additional to what is normal and general." The N/S bidding is exactly what I would expect, given those hands. I see nothing special, just normal, general, bidding. > > It is true that failure to disclose a "normal" > partnership agreement is unlikely to cause damage. It > is also true that invitational to game fit-showing > jumps by a passed hand may be "normal" in ACBL-land. > > But in the Transnational Teams, there are a diversity > of bidding styles (compared to the monochrome bidding > style encouraged in ACBL-land). Therefore, I stand by > my thesis that there is no default "normal" meaning > for a passed hand jump-shift in that event. As a > consequence, I believe that the AC decision was > correct. There has been no interpretation, by the WBFLC or CoP, that says L75C doesn't apply in international competition. Perhaps the Conditions of Contest should address the matter in some way. Our ACBL players are expected to comprehend the practices of other zones, and the same should be expected of the Russians. The WBF has disclosure regulations, I presume. Maybe someone can tell us how they apply to this situation. Edgar Kaplan once sent me a postcard agreeing with my position on L75C. He hoped, however, that I would explain any call for a foreign visitor, or for a novice. I agree with that fully, but only for ACBL play below the NABC level, not for tough international competition. 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 Nov 8 06:24:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7JO3a25772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:24:03 +1100 (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 fA7JNvH25755 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:23:57 +1100 (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 fA7JHoB29052 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:17:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005e01c167c0$c4dd3e20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111071510.KAA08390@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:14:45 -0800 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" > Here's what the WBFLC had to say: > 3. The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement > up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) > occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from > that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take > into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be > valid. > That seems reasonable. In the case being discussed, however, it is my contention that the revoke occurred before the claim statement, and the claim established the revoke. A defender drops some cards on the table face up, a disaster. Quickly he says "I'm claiming," and faces his entire hand. I don't accept that the dropped cards become a part of the claim and therefore immune from the legal consequences. 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 Nov 8 07:04:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7K32S01161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:03:02 +1100 (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 fA7K2uH01149 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:02:56 +1100 (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 fA7JuZF01993 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:56:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111071441.JAA08360@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200111071441.JAA08360@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:55:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris minutes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The WBFLC minutes from Paris, courtesy of Grattan, are available at >ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/outgoing/willner/blml/paris.txt I'll be damned. I guess I've got my 15 minutes of fame now. :) 8. The committee noted that Mr. Ed Reppert had drawn attention to the use of 'must' in Law 9B1(a), implying a requirement to penalize. The committee referred this probably unintended use of 'must' to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee. 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/AwUBO+mSAr2UW3au93vOEQLMZACeM0fgkZRXoRZ+DVT89Kx4lpqJzTUAoPOL +ck/o2YXqIObFSLfE7fyOOK+ =PDdt -----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 Nov 8 07:11:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7K9n702069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:09:49 +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 fA7K9hH02058 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:09:44 +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 MAA14970; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:03:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 07 Nov 2001 11:14:45 PST." <005e01c167c0$c4dd3e20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 12:03:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Steve Willner" > > > Here's what the WBFLC had to say: > > 3. The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an > irregularity > > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the > statement > > up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a > revoke) > > occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he > rules from > > that point as though there were no statement of claim but > should take > > into account any later part of the claim that he considers > still to be > > valid. > > > That seems reasonable. In the case being discussed, however, it is > my contention that the revoke occurred before the claim statement, > and the claim established the revoke. > > A defender drops some cards on the table face up, a disaster. > Quickly he says "I'm claiming," and faces his entire hand. I don't > accept that the dropped cards become a part of the claim and > therefore immune from the legal consequences. I don't either. But isn't it up to the TD to determine the facts? If the defender drops his cards and then tries to pretend he was claiming, the TD shouldn't accept his pretense, and rule whatever the correct ruling would be if the defender dropped his cards. The fact is, sometimes players make their claims by laying down their cards one at a time to indicate how they intend to play the hand. In a way, BLML has probably encouraged this. When a declarer just faces his whole hand, we often complain that he's violated Law 68C and ask whether we should force him to play his cards in any order we choose. So instead, a declarer shows how he intends to play his hand by demonstrating, and then we get on his case saying that this is a play and not a claim. It would be understandable for players to throw all their cards in the air and say "We can't win with you guys." Anyway, perhaps this form of claiming ought to be discouraged or made illegal. If the ACBL (or whoever) conducted a campaign to let players know what the proper form of a claim should be, indicating (for instance) that it must *start* with some verbal indication that the player is claiming, and that pulling out cards and then saying something is bad form, then I think we'd have the right to penalize the declarer for a revoke in this instance. Without this information from the League, though, I don't think it's fair to punish a declarer who thought he was making a legitimate claim. So how do we decide whether the playing of the hearts was on the diamond was an irregularity that occurred during play, or part of a nonverbal claim statement? Answer: *We* don't. The TD does, by asking questions and determining the facts. If the TD determines this "play" was actually part of a claim, the WBFLC ruling kicks in and there can be no revoke penalty. I recognize that Marv actually was at the table, so perhaps he had reason to believe that declarer actually was playing a heart on the diamond, pulled a second heart out of his hand by accident, and then tried to cover it up with a claim. My point is, the TD actually has to believe this to rule that a revoke occurred. It's not enough, IMHO, to say that declarer played two hearts on the diamond before saying anything and that therefore it's a revoke; the TD also has to believe that the declarer was not intending to claim when he played the 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 Thu Nov 8 07:14:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7KCk202646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:12:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7KCdH02631 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:12:40 +1100 (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 fA7K6UF16145; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:06:30 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111071510.KAA08390@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200111071510.KAA08390@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:59:21 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:10 AM -0500 11/7/01, Steve Willner wrote: >Sorry, that should have been 44C. Ah. I wondered. On a side note, I see that L44B claims that the method of playing cards is addressed in L65. That seems not to be the case. :-) 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/AwUBO+mUS72UW3au93vOEQJD8gCgji0fHJy1GtkbPlChVIbeSGfeBIEAn0JN RC5zBiwrfCZSkvxgm1tqbLFg =vFwr -----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 Nov 8 08:06:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7L4ed07600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:04:40 +1100 (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 fA7L4YH07588 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:04:35 +1100 (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 fA7KwSB06512 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:58:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00b801c167ce$c4c5b620$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:51:46 -0800 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 Tom Anonymous, using TD Jim Guida's e-mail address and BLML subscription. Jim (a long-time friend) hasn't been on the internet for a good while, doesn't use that address anymore, and doesn't know who this Tom is. Nor do I. > > The tournament director told me, immediately after the game, that a claim was made, cards faced, and a > line of play was stated that included saying he was pitching hearts on diamonds. During the statement, > he realized he had a diamond. He had not played the diamonds before making his claim. Why do you believe this novice director instead of me? I asked my wife just now what she recalled exactly, and she said declarer played a good diamond from dummy, faced two hearts, said he was playing them on the diamonds, and then faced his remaining cards. She was quite clear on this, and if you think Alice would lie for me, then you don't know Alice. > > Of course, in our club, most players are "nervous" when making a claim against Marvin, because of > Marvin's frequent "yelling" for the director, his condescending tone at the table when the director > arrives, and the usual extremes of detail that "might have been". The claimer was a veteran player, tough as nails, whom I have known for 40 years. He wasn't nervous at all, I can assure you. There certainly was no unpleasantness at the table. The TD made no attempt to find out exactly what had occurred, but merely ruled in my favor tentatively, and then returned and changed the ruling with no explanation. That's typical of this inexperienced director. "Condescending?" Maybe, although I'm not sure what that means. In former years I was admittedly a bit confrontational with some TDs, but I have since mellowed. I am always truthful, believe it or not, and I call for the TD as required, saying "Director please." I may repeat it in a louder voice if no TD seems to be within hearing distance. Am I not required to call the TD when a possible infraction has occurred, or when I am inclined to dispute a claim? > The director then, tries to > reconstruct the facts, as to what really happened at the table. Most times this gets interesting:-) Not much of an attempt, this time. 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 Nov 8 08:43:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7LfaJ14708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:36 +1100 (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 fA7LfVH14704 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:32 +1100 (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 QAA06145 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA10515 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111072135.QAA10515@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > No Herman, declarer won the revoke trick, so a two-trick penalty > applies regardless. It was the 2. I thought you said _dummy_ won the putative revoke trick (with a diamond, declarer having discarded a heart). Of course the one/two-trick question only applies if there was a revoke. I agree with Adam: the TD has to determine the facts. Around here, it is unusual to claim by playing one card at a time, but I've seen it occasionally and wouldn't be surprised to see it again. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 08:46:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7Litf14721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:44:55 +1100 (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 fA7LioH14717 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:44:50 +1100 (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 fA7LchB04699; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 13:38:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d101c167d4$5f426900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 13:32:46 -0800 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 recognize that Marv actually was at the table, so perhaps he had > reason to believe that declarer actually was playing a heart on the > diamond, pulled a second heart out of his hand by accident, and then > tried to cover it up with a claim. No, no, didn't mean to imply that. He faced the two hearts simultaneously after leading a good diamond from dummy, then made his claim statement. I felt that one of the hearts (not both) was legally played, constituting a revoke. I remember now that he fingered one of the hearts, as if playing it on the diamond lead, before making the *de facto* claim statement, but he might not remember that. I think the TD should have asked the claimer to reenact his actions exactly, then ask me whether I agree with the reenactment. If not, then I could act out my understanding of what he did. When the versions conflict, then the TD (or preferably, an AC) must decide which version is the nearest to the truth. In this case I'm pretty sure that Dewey would have replayed his actions accurately enough for me to agree with the replay. We were not given that opportunity. > My point is, the TD actually has > to believe this to rule that a revoke occurred. It's not enough, > IMHO, to say that declarer played two hearts on the diamond before > saying anything and that therefore it's a revoke; the TD also has to > believe that the declarer was not intending to claim when he played > the hearts. > "Intention" is usually a poor defense, as in the "Oh-S____" case. A played card is a played card when inadvertency is not a factor. I don't feel strongly about this, and readily admit that putting two cards down at once might be correctly treated as a claim by the TD, even if it's not proper procedure. 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 Nov 8 09:26:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7MOOl14755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:24:24 +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 fA7MO1H14751 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:24:02 +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 fA7MGWn08641; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:16:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011107160048.00a2b590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:16:26 -0600 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: , In-Reply-To: <00d101c167d4$5f426900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.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 01:32 PM 11/7/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > I recognize that Marv actually was at the table, so perhaps he had > > reason to believe that declarer actually was playing a heart on >the > > diamond, pulled a second heart out of his hand by accident, and >then > > tried to cover it up with a claim. > >No, no, didn't mean to imply that. He faced the two hearts >simultaneously after leading a good diamond from dummy, then made >his claim statement. I felt that one of the hearts (not both) was >legally played, constituting a revoke. I remember now that he >fingered one of the hearts, as if playing it on the diamond lead, >before making the *de facto* claim statement, but he might not >remember that. > >I think the TD should have asked the claimer to reenact his actions >exactly, then ask me whether I agree with the reenactment. If not, >then I could act out my understanding of what he did. When the >versions conflict, then the TD (or preferably, an AC) must decide >which version is the nearest to the truth. In this case I'm pretty >sure that Dewey would have replayed his actions accurately enough >for me to agree with the replay. We were not given that opportunity. I agree, FWIW, that the TD should have done that, unless the verbal description was sufficient to convince him what had happened. I think the TD probably failed to investigate adequately. > > My point is, the TD actually has > > to believe this to rule that a revoke occurred. It's not enough, > > IMHO, to say that declarer played two hearts on the diamond before > > saying anything and that therefore it's a revoke; the TD also has >to > > believe that the declarer was not intending to claim when he >played > > the hearts. > > >"Intention" is usually a poor defense, as in the "Oh-S____" case. A >played card is a played card when inadvertency is not a factor. Except that L68A says that facing your cards is a claim unless one did not demonstrably intend to claim. This declarer faced his cards, while demonstrably intending to claim...he just didn't face them all at the same instant. To rule in your favor, one of two things would have to have happened: a) What really occurred was that declarer played a card from dummy, RHO followed, declarer followed with one and only one heart, LHO followed normally*, and declarer now exposed his second heart and made a claim statement. In this case, declarer seems to have followed to the current trick and _then_ claimed. When declarer plays two cards simultaneously or nearly simultaneously and almost immediately begins making a claim statement _that includes both tricks_, this looks like a claim. Or had declarer said "and on the next trick I'll discard another heart and then....", that, too, would be different. But I read L68A as saying that showing cards with intent to claim is a claim, regardless of whether they are shown one at a time or two at a time or all at once. [*By normally I mean LHO did not see declarer start to claim and then rapidly throw down a card to try to get the claim turned into a revoke or something.] b) You got a TD with the DeWael/Sterling view of what a claim is [a curtailment of play that should be adjudicated on the basis of how play would have gone had it been continued], but who hadn't read the WBFLC minutes or refused to enforce them. {BTW, it is worth mentioning that those who think that I am excessively lenient on bad claimers should see that here's a case where my view of claims is actually more harsh than the current official legal interpretation.} >I don't feel strongly about this, and readily admit that putting two >cards down at once >might be correctly treated as a claim by the TD, even if it's not >proper procedure. > >Marv I actually prefer claimers to put their cards down serially, since it helps me understand their claims better. I think Steve W. [was it?] is correct that we shouldn't damn claimers both ways. As I said, I actually prefer this one. 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 Nov 8 10:13:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7NBDA21081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:11:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7NB7H21060 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:11:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-72-122.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.72.122] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 161bkd-0008LK-00; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 23:04:56 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:58:30 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 07, 2001 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris > > > Only SPECIAL partnership agreements! Excuse > me for shouting. The CoP defines "special" as > "additional to what is normal and general." The > N/S bidding is exactly what I would expect, > given those hands. I see nothing special, just > normal, general, bidding. > > +=+ So Marv, your first proposition, then, is that what is 'normal' in Marv's bridge environment is 'normal' worldwide. Is that right? Secondly, you choose to associate the term 'special' not with 'information', where the law puts it, but with 'agreement'? What the law says is that 'special information' that you have as the result of partnership agreement or of partnership experience must be disclosed. The essence of 'special information' is that you have it but it is not something that you may expect the opponent to take for granted as a matter of general, universal, bridge knowledge. +=+ > > There has been no interpretation, by the WBFLC > or CoP, that says L75C doesn't apply in international > competition. Perhaps the Conditions of Contest > should address the matter in some way. Our ACBL > players are expected to comprehend the practices > of other zones, and the same should be expected of > the Russians. The WBF has disclosure regulations, I > presume. Maybe someone can tell us how they > apply to this situation. > +=+ General Conditions of Contest, 12.2: <"Contestants are required to make full written disclosure of their System and also to make a full disclosure of the meaning of any call or play in response to a proper question at the table from an opponent."> [Full disclosure here would include anything that had been agreed with partner, whether explicitly or implicitly, even if one could argue that it is knowledge readily to be gained from general bridge experience outside of the partnership.] There are also copious detailed requirements for the completion of convention cards, far too long and complex to be set down here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 10:13:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7NBMV21101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:11:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7NBFH21086 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-72-122.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.72.122] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 161bki-0008LK-00; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 23:05:01 +0000 Message-ID: <003e01c167e0$b6a9c880$7a487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Richard Willey" References: <000a01c167aa$264d83c0$d7240b93@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris minutes Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:59:25 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 07, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Paris minutes > Hi All > > Thanks so much for posting the minutes for the meetings. > Quick question: In the minutes there was a reference to > a paper on psychic action. > > "9. A paper on psychic action prepared by the Secretary > was referred to the Systems Committee." > > Is there any chance that this paper might be circulated >more widely? > +=+ The document was referred to the Systems Committee which may not have opportunity to consider it for some time. I think it might be seen as impolite/unhelpful to put the paper in the public domain before they have had that opportunity. However, let me say that it is concerned with Appendix 4 to the WBF General Conditions of Contest. It does not seek to change the policy set out in that appendix; it offers revised wording which [in the author's opinion :-) ] is more readable and technically more accurate. ~ 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 Nov 8 10:30:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7NSh223877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:28:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA7NSbH23855 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:28:37 +1100 (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 fA7NMTB17141 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:22:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000701c167e2$f9dc03a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111072135.QAA10515@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:21:43 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > No Herman, declarer won the revoke trick, so a two-trick penalty > > applies regardless. It was the 2. > > I thought you said _dummy_ won the putative revoke trick (with a > diamond, declarer having discarded a heart). Well, I owe Herman an apology, and have revealed my ignorance. I thought declarer was the "player" of a winning card from dummy, but I guess that's wrong. Learn something every day. Hmmm, declarer plays dummy's cards (L41D) but is not the player of dummy's cards. Okay. The last diamond in declarer's hand was the 2, so it could not have won a trick. How could I possibly think Herman would be wrong? tsk, tsk. So, all we get back from the revoke (if it was one) is the trick the revoke gained. No harm, no foul. Much ado about nothing. 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 Nov 8 10:41:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA7NeBM26230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:40:12 +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 fA7Ne5H26209 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:40:06 +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 fA7NVGh25145; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:31:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:24:13 -0500 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:03 PM -0800 11/7/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >The fact is, sometimes players make their claims by laying down their >cards one at a time to indicate how they intend to play the hand. In >a way, BLML has probably encouraged this. When a declarer just faces >his whole hand, we often complain that he's violated Law 68C and ask >whether we should force him to play his cards in any order we choose. >So instead, a declarer shows how he intends to play his hand by >demonstrating, and then we get on his case saying that this is a play >and not a claim. It would be understandable for players to throw all >their cards in the air and say "We can't win with you guys." I'm not so sure about this. If a player faces his hand, but states no line of play, that *is* a violation of L68C. However, there is no question of "forcing him to play" in any order. He has claimed [L68A]. There is no more play [L68D]. If opponents acquiesce, end of story. If they don't, the TD is called. *He* decides how the play would have gone. The claimer might now state a line of play - that is a new line of play in the meaning of L70D. So if there is a less successful normal line, TD will rule that way. I don't see why this should be controversial. Um, one caveat on the question of controversy: there is a belief, I understand, among some players that if declarer claims without a statement, defense can specify his line of play. Tain't so. Defense can suggest that "if he plays it this way, we get...." It's still up to the TD to make the final determination, in accordance with the criteria specified in the law. If a player lays down his cards one at a time, saying, "I'm claiming, and will play in this order..." that too is a claim, and will be adjudicated in the same way. If he makes no statement at all, then again TD is called, and L68A tells us that this is still a claim unless the player "demonstrably did not intend to claim". Seems to me that situation would be rare indeed. A TD who rules this a play (or series of plays, possibly OOT) when he cannot show the player "demonstrably did not intend to claim" is wrong. I don't expect that should happen very often. Taking another look at Marv's case (declarer faced two hearts, and then...) it seems to me that it is not the case that declarer "demonstrably did not intend to claim" when he did that, so he claimed at that point. That would make "I'm going to pitch two hearts on the diamonds" part of his claim statement, and according to the WBFLC ruling that (if I remember the wording correctly) "the irregularity is not to be accepted," we can't rule that he revoked. So NS +450/EW-450 seems to be the required ruling. If, OTOH, there is sufficient evidence to convince a TD that declarer did *not* intend to claim when he threw down the two hearts (I don't see how there could be) then the play of the second heart is a revoke (at least, it is if we ignore the fact that he's playing to a trick when the play to the previous trick has not yet been completed) and it seems to me that it has occurred *before* the claim, rather than as part of the claim statement, and so the WBF ruling does not apply. Have I got that right? >So how do we decide whether the playing of the hearts was on the >diamond was an irregularity that occurred during play, or part of a >nonverbal claim statement? Answer: *We* don't. The TD does, by >asking questions and determining the facts. If the TD determines this >"play" was actually part of a claim, the WBFLC ruling kicks in and >there can be no revoke penalty. So we agree on this part, at least. :-) >I recognize that Marv actually was at the table, so perhaps he had >reason to believe that declarer actually was playing a heart on the >diamond, pulled a second heart out of his hand by accident, and then >tried to cover it up with a claim. My point is, the TD actually has >to believe this to rule that a revoke occurred. It's not enough, >IMHO, to say that declarer played two hearts on the diamond before >saying anything and that therefore it's a revoke; the TD also has to >believe that the declarer was not intending to claim when he played >the hearts. Yep. 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/AwUBO+nEWL2UW3au93vOEQJxbgCg5JG+aNxRbBzqbIib1cliIzS4RNYAoPna g65UuYlpwBOBvXV96SjiBvym =2xHI -----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 Nov 8 11:03:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA800x028377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:00:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA800rH28373 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:00:54 +1100 (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 fA7Nq6F12219; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:52:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d101c167d4$5f426900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> <00d101c167d4$5f426900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:44:53 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: , Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:32 PM -0800 11/7/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >"Intention" is usually a poor defense, as in the "Oh-S____" case. A >played card is a played card when inadvertency is not a factor. In this case, it's not a matter of defense, I think. The Law says that if a player "faces his cards" he has claimed, unless "he demonstrably did not intend to claim". So it seems to me that if the player says he was claiming, it's up to the TD (perhaps with testimony from opps) to show that demonstrably did not intend to do so. >I don't feel strongly about this, and readily admit that putting two >cards down at once might be correctly treated as a claim by the TD, >even if it's not >proper procedure. This could get interesting. Chapter VI of the Law ("The Play") is divided into five parts. Part one ("Procedure") is divided into two sections, the first of which is "Correct Procedure". The Laws regarding claims are in Part Five, and thus not not part of "Procedure" at all, much less "correct procedure". Never mind - it really just means the laws could be better organized, and we already knew that. :-) > He faced the two hearts simultaneously after leading a good diamond >from dummy, then made >his claim statement. I felt that one of the hearts (not both) was >legally played, constituting a revoke. If that's the way it happened, then I think you have a case. :-) 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/AwUBO+nJLr2UW3au93vOEQJR3ACbB2Bz0+4fhhH/IwaZkQ0bMkEWrccAoOoS 8bG5nCW8YJLVyKyeHjETPrTq =fy2p -----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 Nov 8 11:09:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8085q28392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:08:05 +1100 (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 fA8080H28388 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:08:00 +1100 (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 fA801BF24092; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:01:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011107160048.00a2b590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.1.20011107160048.00a2b590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:00:15 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: "Marvin L. French" , , Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:16 PM -0600 11/7/01, Grant Sterling wrote: > To rule in your favor, one of two things would >have to have happened: Actually, I think there's more possibilities. First, it's clear that declarer won the heart lead in dummy. Then, apparently, he led a diamond from dummy. Whether he waited for his RHO to play is unclear, but he either: (a) simultaneously laid two hearts down, and then said "I'm pitching two hearts on the diamonds", and then laid down the rest of his hand, or (b) sequentially laid two hearts down, stating his line after laying down the second heart. In either case, he did not notice the remaining diamond in his hand until *after* he stated his line, apparently when he laid down the remainder of his cards. If (a) is what happened, then he claimed at that point, the WBFLC minute applies, and the score should be NS +450/EW -450. If (b) is what happened, then I think Marv has a case that declarer played a heart to the diamond lead, revoking, and *then* claimed. In which case, the score should be NS +420/EW -420. If he noticed the diamond in his hand after playing the first heart, and *then* claimed, trying to avoid a revoke penalty, then he should be shot [L72B4]. But Marv said that's not what happened, and I believe him. :-) 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/AwUBO+nLSb2UW3au93vOEQI7ngCgyjDWC7uEti+jA20SKItVYWF/fegAoO+g gny9XeeQ8IrYzsKQt1Jn68OB =3pWG -----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 Nov 8 11:29:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA80Rbt28410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:27:37 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA80RVH28406 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:27:32 +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 fA80L9h06486; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:21:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.1.20011107160048.00a2b590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:20:39 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:00 PM -0500 11/7/01, Ed Reppert wrote: >Actually, I think there's more possibilities. Huh. When I wrote that, I thought there were. Now that I read the message as I sent it, it seems I forgot whatever it was I had in mind in there somewhere. It seems where we differ on how the way the play went affects things is only in that I don't think declarer's LHO has to have played to the first (or fourth, depending how you look at it) diamond trick to establish the revoke. 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/AwUBO+nP+b2UW3au93vOEQJK7gCgncXlkuxuZuNJuQwnEB4uupCEMX0AoI6J GJd/BFscBkeQLZvxno0LioSt =LKcg -----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 Nov 8 11:30:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA80Sbi28417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:28:37 +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 fA80SVH28413 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:28:31 +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 fA80L6h06395; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:21:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:12:50 -0500 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Cc: "Marvin L. French" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:58 PM +0000 11/7/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >So Marv, your first proposition, then, is that >what is 'normal' in Marv's bridge environment is >'normal' worldwide. Is that right? I can't speak for Marv, but it seems to me that "normal" depends on where you're playing, and who else is there. Which creates a dilemma: how is a player new to a game supposed to know what "normal" is? If he doesn't know, what is he supposed to do? Disclose *everything* he knows (or thinks he knows :)? > Secondly, you choose to associate the term >'special' not with 'information', where the law >puts it, but with 'agreement'? What the law says is >that 'special information' that you have as the >result of partnership agreement or of partnership >experience must be disclosed. The essence of >'special information' is that you have it but it is >not something that you may expect the opponent >to take for granted as a matter of general, universal, >bridge knowledge. Um. If, playing Precision, I agree to open 1C on 16+ HCP, while realizing that evaluation on the basis of HCP alone is often inaccurate, and so there are some hands of 16 HCP which should not be opened 1C, and some of 15 (or even 14) which should be so opened, have I failed to fully disclose our agreement if I don't mention that, or is "realizing that evaluation on the basis of HCP alone is often inaccurate" a matter of general, universal bridge knowledge? Does the venue matter? I would expect most decent players to be aware of this fact, but novices may not be, for example. So it seems that either (a) the knowledge is not universal, so the realization must always be disclosed, even playing with experts or (b) the venue matters, and the knowledge should be disclosed to (known? assumed?) novices, but need not be disclosed to experts (intermediates? non-novices?) If I'm wrong, please explain. :-) 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/AwUBO+nP9r2UW3au93vOEQLzNQCeKJsNkcG3rwSQpp7sWKOD18ltCigAn2Nz E42toHyYH60cAscAgIjmcfHL =1M7f -----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 Nov 8 11:40:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA80ctl28435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:38:55 +1100 (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 fA80coH28431 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:38:50 +1100 (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 fA80WhB22413 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:32:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:22:05 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > > > Only SPECIAL partnership agreements! Excuse > > me for shouting. The CoP defines "special" as > > "additional to what is normal and general." The > > N/S bidding is exactly what I would expect, > > given those hands. I see nothing special, just > > normal, general, bidding. > > > > +=+ So Marv, your first proposition, then, is that > what is 'normal' in Marv's bridge environment is > 'normal' worldwide. Is that right? Hey, I didn't write the CoP. As with the ACBL, those who write such things are duty-bound to document what they believe to be "normal" or "general." I'll start: Single jumps are strong Double jump overcalls are weak defensively Opening bids in a suit at the three level, or four of a minor, are weak defensively Opening game bids in first or second seat are weak defensively Opening notrump bids show a balanced hand Non-competitive raises or re-raises to one level below game are invitational Doubles of opening suit bids at the three level or below are for takeout Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." Simple new suit responses by an unpassed hand to an opening bid of one in a suit are forcing (please don't nitpick these, I'm just trying to make a point) I could go on and on. Departures from these normal, general, practices must be disclosed, but they themselves need not be disclosed (L75C). > Secondly, you choose to associate the term > 'special' not with 'information', where the law > puts it, but with 'agreement'? Huh? L75: "Special partnership agreements..." > What the law says is > that 'special information' that you have as the > result of partnership agreement or of partnership > experience must be disclosed. The essence of > 'special information' is that you have it but it is > not something that you may expect the opponent > to take for granted as a matter of general, universal, > bridge knowledge. +=+ Of course. I fully agree, except for that new word "universal." What is normal and general, like monogamy, may not be universal. But now you contradict that: > > > +=+ General Conditions of Contest, 12.2: > <"Contestants are required to make full written > disclosure of their System and also to make a full > disclosure of the meaning of any call or play in > response to a proper question at the table from > an opponent."> [Full disclosure here would include > anything that had been agreed with partner, whether > explicitly or implicitly, even if one could argue that > it is knowledge readily to be gained from general > bridge experience outside of the partnership.] > There are also copious detailed requirements > for the completion of convention cards, far too long > and complex to be set down here. And Alert requirements, I presume. All that is fine, although not in accordance with the Laws. I suggest that the word "special" be removed from L75 if statements such as that of the CoC are to be considered legal. I would not play in an event whose CoC is not in accord with the Laws. Yeah, I know...who cares? 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 Nov 8 14:04:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA832cY28508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:02:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA832XH28504 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:02:33 +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 OAA25670 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:05:48 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:42:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:36:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/11/2001 01:48:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >I can't speak for Marv, but it seems to me that >"normal" depends on where you're playing, and >who else is there. [big snip] L75C applies to both calls and plays. So as a counterexample for Ed's assertion that "normal" is relative, see the suit combination below. Dummy KJx LHO RHO Q10x xxx Declarer A9xx Declarer leads to dummy's jack, then plays dummy's king. LHO drops the queen on the second round. At this stage declarer asks RHO about the agreed meaning of LHO's queen. IMHO, a mandatory false card is surely defined as an "inference drawn from general knowledge and experience", so RHO would never be required to disclose its meaning to declarer. 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 Nov 8 19:34:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA88Xtm17514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:33:55 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA88XmH17510 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-120-137-53.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.120.137.53] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 161kVa-000Nhu-00; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 08:25:59 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c1682f$4edf6760$9e3b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] Re: 'Special information' - was Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:24:12 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 08, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris > > I could go on and on. Departures from these normal, general, > practices must be disclosed, but they themselves need not be > disclosed (L75C). > +=+ except when they cease to be inferential +=+ > > > > Secondly, you choose to associate the term > > 'special' not with 'information', where the law > > puts it, but with 'agreement'? > > Huh? L75: "Special partnership agreements..." > +=+ see 75C which deals with explanations; 75A states a principle. +=+ > > > > What the law says is > > that 'special information' that you have as the > > result of partnership agreement or of partnership > > experience must be disclosed. The essence of > > 'special information' is that you have it but it is > > not something that you may expect the opponent > > to take for granted as a matter of general, universal, > > bridge knowledge. +=+ > > Of course. I fully agree, except for that new word > "universal." What is normal and general, like monogamy, > may not be universal. > +=+ Quite so; and the scope of what is 'normal' in a monogamous society is no longer the same in a society where monogamy and polygamy dwell side by side. In truth I am surprised that you quote monogamy as an example of what is 'normal'. Perhaps Salt Lake City will teach us something. +=+ > But now you contradict that: > > > > > General Conditions of Contest, 12.2: +=+ I do not contradict; I merely quote regulations governing a mixed society: the law is the same, what changes is what is 'normal' and may be relied upon as general bridge knowledge. What does not change is the requirement to disclose your agreements with partner, matters which are therefore no longer 'inferences' (see 75C). ~ 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 Nov 8 22:54:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8BqdU25911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:52:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA8BqXH25907 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:52:33 +1100 (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 161nd6-000BMF-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:46:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 02:39:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$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 >Hey, I didn't write the CoP. As with the ACBL, those who write such >things are duty-bound to document what they believe to be "normal" >or "general." > >I'll start: > >Single jumps are strong >Double jump overcalls are weak defensively >Opening bids in a suit at the three level, or four of a minor, are >weak defensively >Opening game bids in first or second seat are weak defensively >Opening notrump bids show a balanced hand >Non-competitive raises or re-raises to one level below game are >invitational >Doubles of opening suit bids at the three level or below are for >takeout >Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." >Simple new suit responses by an unpassed hand to an opening bid of >one in a suit are forcing > >(please don't nitpick these, I'm just trying to make a point) > > >I could go on and on. Departures from these normal, general, >practices must be disclosed, but they themselves need not be >disclosed (L75C). Now, the trouble with this approach is that what you have defined as normal here is normal *for the ACBL*. That does not make such things normal in international competition. To be fair, most are. But of course you have chosen ones that are similar worldwide. However, the actual sequence that started this is definitely not one with a "normal" treatment. A jump shift after passing has four fairly common meanings, Fit Jumps, natural and invitational, weak and pre-emptive, Bergen. To suggest any one of these is normal in an international competition is just wrong, even if you can be sure what normal is in the ACBL - and I remember an argument I lost in the EBU when I claimed there was a normal meaning for this sequence in the EBU [I claimed Fit Jumps were normal, but was convinced that natural and invitational was just as normal]. -- 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 Thu Nov 8 23:18:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8CITk29416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:18:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA8CINH29412 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:18:24 +1100 (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 fA8CCBn18665; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:13 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fA8CCBe02942; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:11 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 12:12:11 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 MAA07653; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:10 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA20210; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:10 GMT Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:10 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111081212.MAA20210@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Passes of a redouble; was Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hey, I didn't write the CoP. As with the ACBL, those who write such > things are duty-bound to document what they believe to be "normal" > or "general." > > I'll start: > > Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." [others snipped] This not laws/regulations related: but is this agreement normal? In the places were it is normal, don't you get a lot of psychic redoubles when parter of the takeout doubler may be passing for penalties? Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 23:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8CRsT29429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:27:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.kpnqwest.ch (mail.eunet.ch [146.228.10.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA8CRmH29425 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:27:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [194.230.181.52] (pop-zh-21-2-dialup-52.freesurf.ch [194.230.181.52]) by mail.kpnqwest.ch (8.9.3/1.34) via ESMTP id NAA60505 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:21:36 +0100 (CET) env-from (victor@veloblitz.ch) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: velobli2@pop.eunet.ch (Unverified) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:22:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Victor Badran Subject: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following question. And I think we did it wrong. Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. 25. N/EW A8 Qxxxxx Q10xx AJ Qx xxxx Kxx J10x xxx AKJxx KQxxxx x KJ109xx Ax x 1098x At one table they made 4S = 420. N E S W 1H p 2D* *TD There was a lot of talking at the table. S intendet to open 2D multi. TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to NS. He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. NS appealed We decided to cancel the extra board. We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have canceled the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used 25. Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. PS. It is normal that there is no director during these league competitions in Switzerland. It shouldn't be like this, but it is. ave Victor -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 8 23:58:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8CvQZ29447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:57:26 +1100 (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 fA8CvKH29443 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.105.246] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 161oeE-0007HT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 12:51:11 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c16854$0022b260$f6697ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200111081212.MAA20210@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Passes of a redouble; was Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:50:51 -0000 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: > > Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." > [others snipped] > > This not laws/regulations related: but is this agreement normal? > > In the places were it is normal, don't you get a lot of psychic > redoubles when parter of the takeout doubler may be passing for > penalties? I would say that it is "normal" to play: 1S Dble Rdble Pass as expressing no preference (for the moment) and requesting the takeout doubler to bid. However, obviously: 2S Pass Pass Dble Rdble Pass is for penalty (it would be abnormal, not to say absurd, to play otherwise). This illustrates quite graphically the difficulties inherent in attempting to construct a set of rules about what constitutes "general bridge knowledge". Such a task, I fear, would be close to impossible, and would in any case be something of a waste of time. If you know what your partner's call means, and there's some possibility that the opponents don't, you should alert it and, if requested, explain 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 Fri Nov 9 00:26:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8DQdD29477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:26:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA8DQWH29473 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:26:33 +1100 (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 fA8DKMn27206; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:20:23 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fA8DKL407626; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:20:21 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:20:21 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 NAA07730; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:20:21 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA20228; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:20:20 GMT Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:20:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111081320.NAA20228@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: Passes of a redouble; was Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote in reply to me: > > > > Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." > > [others snipped] > > > > This not laws/regulations related: but is this agreement normal? > > > > In the places were it is normal, don't you get a lot of psychic > > redoubles when parter of the takeout doubler may be passing for > > penalties? > > I would say that it is "normal" to play: > > 1S Dble Rdble Pass > > as expressing no preference (for the moment) and requesting the takeout > doubler to bid. I guess this is what Marvin had in mind. I was thinking of a different agreement, which many partnerships have, that a pass of a redouble IS to play (expect after a TOX of an opening bid). > However, obviously: > > 2S Pass Pass Dble > Rdble Pass > > is for penalty (it would be abnormal, not to say absurd, to play > otherwise). > > This illustrates quite graphically the difficulties inherent in > attempting to construct a set of rules about what constitutes "general > bridge knowledge". Such a task, I fear, would be close to impossible, > and would in any case be something of a waste of time. If you know what > your partner's call means, and there's some possibility that the > opponents don't, you should alert it and, if requested, explain it. I agree. I dislike not alerting "general bridge knowledge", very often this is not knowledge that general bridge players have. EW: Why didn't you alert that call? NS: Its general bridge knowledge. EW: TD! They didn't alert because it is general bridge knowledge. Is that right? TD: Yes. (perhaps after consultation) EW: Well we didn't know it. TD: Nevertheless, it is general bridge knowledge. (perhaps squirming) EW: Thank you, TD. I guess that means we're generally bridge ignorant. Roin -- 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 Nov 9 00:30:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8DTub29490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:29:56 +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 fA8DToH29486 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:29:50 +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 OAA24238; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:22:18 +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 OAA05877; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:23:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108142315.00a87d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:24:04 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: 'Special information' - was Appeal #4 in Paris In-Reply-To: <004d01c1682f$4edf6760$9e3b7bd5@dodona> References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:24 8/11/2001 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > Of course. I fully agree, except for that new word > > "universal." What is normal and general, like monogamy, > > may not be universal. > > >+=+ Quite so; and the scope of what is 'normal' in a >monogamous society is no longer the same in a society >where monogamy and polygamy dwell side by side. In >truth I am surprised that you quote monogamy as an >example of what is 'normal'. Perhaps Salt Lake City >will teach us something. +=+ AG : Bali could have done, too. As well as about one third of planet Earth, not to mention any other. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 00:35:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8DZZE29502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:35:35 +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 fA8DZTH29498 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:35:29 +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 OAA26563; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:27:53 +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 OAA11402; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:29:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108142514.00a16d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:29:41 +0100 To: Victor Badran , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland 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 13:22 8/11/2001 +0100, Victor Badran wrote: >Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following question. >And I think we did it wrong. > >Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. > >25. N/EW > > A8 > Qxxxxx > Q10xx > AJ > Qx xxxx > Kxx J10x > xxx AKJxx > KQxxxx x > KJ109xx > Ax > x > 1098x > >At one table they made 4S = 420. > > N E S W > 1H p 2D* > >*TD >There was a lot of talking at the table. >S intendet to open 2D multi. >TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to NS. >He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. > >NS appealed > >We decided to cancel the extra board. >We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. > >But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have canceled >the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used 25. >Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. AG : if the board was not passed back, WTH ? Let them play on. Only the NOS has got any extraneous information. If it was, and partner saw the bid, then L25 applies. South will bid what he wishes, most probably 4S. Apply the score for 4S, compared to the other table result, or -3 to NS, whichever is less. Best regards, Alain. PS : don't feel guilty for the TDing conditions in Switzerland. We've got the same bad ones here in Belgium. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 00:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8DhXa29519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:43:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtprt15.wanadoo.fr (smtprt15.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA8DhNH29515 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:43:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by smtprt15.wanadoo.fr; 8 Nov 2001 14:37:08 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.227.182) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 8 Nov 2001 14:36:12 +0100 Message-ID: <005001c16859$f06ae580$b6e3f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:33:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, Victor. I agree with you. TD should have applied L25. Of course, there where many UI that can't be used by NS (OS) but could be by EW (NOS) It's normal to cancel additional board, now cancel B25 and give adjusted score to both teams. +3 to NS but could it be better to EW because partners get a very good in the other room? 4S is not easy to bid ... and must go down! Could be +5 or even little more to EW. Olivier. [Perso] Best regards to Helga and C°. Hope to see everybody soon. > Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following question. > And I think we did it wrong. > > Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. > > 25. N/EW > > A8 > Qxxxxx > Q10xx > AJ > Qx xxxx > Kxx J10x > xxx AKJxx > KQxxxx x > KJ109xx > Ax > x > 1098x > > At one table they made 4S = 420. > > N E S W > 1H p 2D* > > *TD > There was a lot of talking at the table. > S intendet to open 2D multi. > TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to NS. > He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. > > NS appealed > > We decided to cancel the extra board. > We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. > > But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have > canceled the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used > 25. > Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. > > PS. It is normal that there is no director during these league > competitions in Switzerland. It shouldn't be like this, but it is. > > ave Victor > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 9 01:12:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8ECUT29541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA8ECOH29537 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:12:25 +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 PAA10584; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:04:49 +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 PAA18495; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:05:58 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:06:35 +0100 To: blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] et colegram Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dar blmlists, Some recent threads treated in a secondary way the matter of designating a card 'in any other way'. I'm wondering how far 'any other' can go. In a recent incident (quite rapidly ironed out in laughter), it was the cetral point : There is a well-known (perhaps not so well-known, as you will see) French nursery rhyme that begins with 'pique et pique et colegram'. Some funny guy was declaring a NT contract. Spades were around the table as follows : KQxx 10xx Jxx Axx At trick 5, he played AS. At trick 6, spade to the King, then he called 'Dame de Pique' (Queen of spades), and seeing the favorable lie, 'et colegram' (more or less funnily intending to mean 'et pique' ...) Dummy reached for the last spade, whereupon the defenders objected, because Dummy had suggested that a card be played, without indication in this sense from declarer (L45F). The question is : did declarer 'designate the card to be played' assuming : 1) that everybody would get the trick : 'et colegram' meaning of course (?) 'et pique' 2) that the joke is more or less private (assuming, as always, that NS aren't cheating, and that Declarer's intention was *not* to ask Dummy to select a card) Thank you for your views. 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 Nov 9 01:44:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8Eiee29562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:44:40 +1100 (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 fA8EiYH29558 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:44:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:39:15 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E605@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: blML Subject: RE: [BLML] et colegram Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:39:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Dar blmlists, > >Some recent threads treated in a secondary way the matter of designating a >card 'in any other way'. >I'm wondering how far 'any other' can go. >In a recent incident (quite rapidly ironed out in laughter), it was the >cetral point : > >There is a well-known (perhaps not so well-known, as you will see) French >nursery rhyme that begins with 'pique et pique et colegram'. > >Some funny guy was declaring a NT contract. Spades were around the table as >follows : > > KQxx > 10xx Jxx > > Axx > >At trick 5, he played AS. At trick 6, spade to the King, then he called >'Dame de Pique' (Queen of spades), and seeing the favorable lie, 'et >colegram' (more or less funnily intending to mean > 'et pique' ...) >Dummy reached for the last spade, whereupon the defenders objected, because >Dummy had suggested that a card be played, without indication in this sense >from declarer (L45F). > >The question is : did declarer 'designate the card to be played' assuming : >1) that everybody would get the trick : 'et colegram' meaning of course >(?) 'et pique' >2) that the joke is more or less private > >(assuming, as always, that NS aren't cheating, and that Declarer's >intention was *not* to ask Dummy to select a card) Hmm, I would say that declarer meant, on the QS: (East follows) pique, (South follows) et pique, (West follows too) et colegram. In other words, I suggest that declarer was referring to West following to the QS, and thus was stating that dummy's last spade is now free. The fourth spade is therefore not a designated card (although declarer probably wants to play it anyway). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 01:48:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8EmY629582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:48:35 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA8EmOH29578 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:48:25 +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 PAA15650; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:39:01 +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 PAA26486; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:42:02 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108153345.00acd440@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:42:39 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Passes of a redouble; was Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris In-Reply-To: <004d01c16854$0022b260$f6697ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200111081212.MAA20210@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 12:50 8/11/2001 +0000, David Burn wrote: >I would say that it is "normal" to play: > >1S Dble Rdble Pass > >as expressing no preference (for the moment) and requesting the takeout >doubler to bid. However, obviously: > >2S Pass Pass Dble >Rdble Pass > >is for penalty (it would be abnormal, not to say absurd, to play >otherwise). AG : allow me to add that 2S Dble Rdble Pass is 'obviously' to play when using Weiss (ie, optional doubles), which is alertable, of course, but the opponents won't always ask. It has been said before on blml, in a thread initiated by yours truly, that you are expected to protect opponents against missing 'obvious' meanings that are obvious only if one knows the meaning of previous bids. Here, the Rdbl is then alertable. A related matter is : 1NT Dbl Pass If pass means 'there we will play, either because I'm strong or because I've got no suit', it isn't alertable (non-conventional meaning). The fact that partner will nearly always pass is not a consequence from the meaning of the Rdbl, but from the fact that he told his pattern in one bid and isn't asked to express himself once more, a 'common knowledge' fact. If it means 'there we will play, because I've got some cards, and please double them if you hold some trumps' (a frequent treatment, but by no means standard nor obvious), it is alertable. However, both are 'to play', which means that 'is it specifically to play' isn't the good criterion. 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 Nov 9 02:18:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8FHYO29606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:17:34 +1100 (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 fA8FHTH29602 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:17:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.63.39] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 161qpq-0003mx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: <003501c16867$93b94f80$273f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:10:59 -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 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: > There is a well-known (perhaps not so well-known, as you will see) French > nursery rhyme that begins with 'pique et pique et colegram'. > > Some funny guy was declaring a NT contract. Spades were around the table as > follows : > > KQxx > 10xx Jxx > Axx > > At trick 5, he played AS. At trick 6, spade to the King, then he called > 'Dame de Pique' (Queen of spades), and seeing the favorable lie, 'et > colegram' (more or less funnily intending to mean > 'et pique' ...) > Dummy reached for the last spade, whereupon the defenders objected, because > Dummy had suggested that a card be played, without indication in this sense > from declarer (L45F). > > The question is : did declarer 'designate the card to be played' assuming : > 1) that everybody would get the trick : 'et colegram' meaning of course > (?) 'et pique' > 2) that the joke is more or less private > > (assuming, as always, that NS aren't cheating, and that Declarer's > intention was *not* to ask Dummy to select a card) It has been argued in a previous (interminable) thread that provided declarer's "designation" was clear to dummy (as by pointing at a card in a way that was visible to dummy, who would be looking, but not to a defender, who would not be), the card designated is the card played. If, for example, I were playing with a fellow Briton and requested "the curse of Scotland" from the dummy, that would be a "designation" of the nine of diamonds. And woe betide some ignorant defender who, thinking that the "curse of Scotland" was, say, the eight of spades, attempted to follow suit to the trick with a spade, or even with a colegram. You can, it appears, "otherwise designate" a card by any number of means, whether or not the defenders know which card has been designated (as long as dummy knows, that's fine). Until it is made clear that L45C4a defines only a constraint (if you designate a card, you must play it) and not a right (to designate a card by some means other than specifying the rank and the suit or by physically moving it into the played position), confusion will continue to reign. Mais ce miracle, nous le verrons quand? Quand les poules auront les dents. 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 Nov 9 03:28:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8GSJt29673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:28:19 +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-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 fA8GS8H29664 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:28:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GLvB09955 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:21:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEA7B82.5DE1A2CB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:33:06 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Tom, well, in that story - no revoke, claim, and 11 tricks. I have one separate opinion though. Although a player cannot be deemed to revoke within a claim, this is with one exception. If a player claims with only 12 cards in hand (originally), then I rule that he would not have found the 13th before having revoked, if such is possible in a normal line (or one included in the claim statement). The same could be true in the present case, where the diamond was stuck behind some other card. Depending on how it was stuck, I might be inclined to rule that claimer would indeed discard two hearts before playing that ace under which the diamond was stuck. So I could be found ruling 10 tricks here, if the facts were like that. jaycue@mindspring.com wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do > > >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the > > >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks > > >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, > > >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 > > >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to > > >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus > > >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 > > > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that > > we considered that : > > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > > 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer > > suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked > > him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play > > (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. > > Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > > > If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > > > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > Because the second time round, Marv told us that two tricks > were played (with hearts discarded on diamonds) - so there > is a revoke. > > In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of > diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make > one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a > 2-trick penalty. > > Of course all in the framework of Marv's second version. > > The tournament director told me, immediately after the game, that a claim was made, cards faced, and a > line of play was stated that included saying he was pitching hearts on diamonds. During the statement, > he realized he had a diamond. He had not played the diamonds before making his claim. > > Of course, in our club, most players are "nervous" when making a claim against Marvin, because of > Marvin's frequent "yelling" for the director, his condescending tone at the table when the director > arrives, and the usual extremes of detail that "might have been". The director then, tries to > reconstruct the facts, as to what really happened at the table. Most times this gets interesting:-) > > Thanks, Tom -- 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 Nov 9 03:28:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8GSIi29672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:28:18 +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 fA8GS9H29665 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:28:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GM0B09965 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:22:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEA7BF4.A3978B62@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:35:00 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> <003d01c167b9$c39028e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > It was clear to me that he definitely intended to play the second > heart on the next diamond lead from dummy, and was just claiming in > order to hurry things along. > > > In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of > > diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make > > one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a > > 2-trick penalty. > > No Herman, declarer won the revoke trick, so a two-trick penalty > applies regardless. It was the 2. > No Marv, dummy won the revoke trick. one penalty trick. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 03:41:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8Gdjc29693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:39:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA8GddH29689 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 03:39:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.4.191] (helo=[217.35.4.191]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 161s7J-0004iF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:33:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005001c16859$f06ae580$b6e3f9c1@olivier> References: <005001c16859$f06ae580$b6e3f9c1@olivier> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:33:23 +0000 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland 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 fA8GdfH29690 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:33 pm +0100 8/11/01, Olivier Beauvillain wrote: >Hello, Victor. > >I agree with you. >TD should have applied L25. Of course, there where many UI that can't be >used by NS (OS) but could be by EW (NOS) >It's normal to cancel additional board, now cancel B25 and give adjusted >score to both teams. +3 to NS but could it be better to EW because partners >get a very good in the other room? 4S is not easy to bid ... and must go >down! It's not clear that this is true, thought the abundance of major suit cards certainly makes it harder to know what might have happened. Gordon Rainsford London UK > Could be +5 or even little more to EW. >Olivier. >[Perso] Best regards to Helga and C°. Hope to see everybody soon. > > >> Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following >question. >> And I think we did it wrong. >> >> Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. >> >> 25. N/EW >> >> A8 >> Qxxxxx >> Q10xx >> AJ >> Qx xxxx >> Kxx J10x >> xxx AKJxx >> KQxxxx x >> KJ109xx >> Ax >> x >> 1098x >> >> At one table they made 4S = 420. >> >> N E S W >> 1H p 2D* >> >> *TD >> There was a lot of talking at the table. >> S intendet to open 2D multi. >> TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to >NS. >> He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. >> >> NS appealed >> >> We decided to cancel the extra board. >> We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. >> >> But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have >> canceled the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used >> 25. >> Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. >> >> PS. It is normal that there is no director during these league >> competitions in Switzerland. It shouldn't be like this, but it is. >> > > ave Victor -- 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 Nov 9 04:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8H1nj29735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:49 +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 fA8H1cH29722 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.75]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GtST06179 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:55:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEA7BF4.A3978B62@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:35:00 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> <003d01c167b9$c39028e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > It was clear to me that he definitely intended to play the second > heart on the next diamond lead from dummy, and was just claiming in > order to hurry things along. > > > In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of > > diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make > > one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a > > 2-trick penalty. > > No Herman, declarer won the revoke trick, so a two-trick penalty > applies regardless. It was the 2. > No Marv, dummy won the revoke trick. one penalty trick. -- 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 Nov 9 04:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8H1qm29736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:52 +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 fA8H1fH29728 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.75]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GtUT06187 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:55:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEA7F50.58A31E65@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:49:20 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111072003.MAA14970@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.1.20011107160048.00a2b590@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 I am apparently in league with Grant, and indeed I agree with him in alomst everything he writes below : Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 01:32 PM 11/7/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > > I recognize that Marv actually was at the table, so perhaps he had > > > reason to believe that declarer actually was playing a heart on > >the > > > diamond, pulled a second heart out of his hand by accident, and > >then > > > tried to cover it up with a claim. > > > >No, no, didn't mean to imply that. He faced the two hearts > >simultaneously after leading a good diamond from dummy, then made > >his claim statement. I felt that one of the hearts (not both) was > >legally played, constituting a revoke. I remember now that he > >fingered one of the hearts, as if playing it on the diamond lead, > >before making the *de facto* claim statement, but he might not > >remember that. > > > >I think the TD should have asked the claimer to reenact his actions > >exactly, then ask me whether I agree with the reenactment. If not, > >then I could act out my understanding of what he did. When the > >versions conflict, then the TD (or preferably, an AC) must decide > >which version is the nearest to the truth. In this case I'm pretty > >sure that Dewey would have replayed his actions accurately enough > >for me to agree with the replay. We were not given that opportunity. > > I agree, FWIW, that the TD should have done that, > unless the verbal description was sufficient to convince > him what had happened. I think the TD probably failed to > investigate adequately. > Amen. We shall probably never know what happened, and it might be best to start afresh. > > > My point is, the TD actually has > > > to believe this to rule that a revoke occurred. It's not enough, > > > IMHO, to say that declarer played two hearts on the diamond before > > > saying anything and that therefore it's a revoke; the TD also has > >to > > > believe that the declarer was not intending to claim when he > >played > > > the hearts. > > > > >"Intention" is usually a poor defense, as in the "Oh-S____" case. A > >played card is a played card when inadvertency is not a factor. > > Except that L68A says that facing your cards is a > claim unless one did not demonstrably intend to claim. > This declarer faced his cards, while demonstrably intending > to claim...he just didn't face them all at the same instant. Personally I don't believe it is important at which point the claim comes in, as you shall see below. > To rule in your favor, one of two things would > have to have happened: > > a) What really occurred was that declarer played a card > from dummy, RHO followed, declarer followed with one and > only one heart, LHO followed normally*, and declarer now > exposed his second heart and made a claim statement. In > this case, declarer seems to have followed to the current > trick and _then_ claimed. When declarer plays two cards > simultaneously or nearly simultaneously and almost > immediately begins making a claim statement _that includes > both tricks_, this looks like a claim. Or had declarer said > "and on the next trick I'll discard another heart and > then....", that, too, would be different. But I read L68A > as saying that showing cards with intent to claim is a > claim, regardless of whether they are shown one at a time > or two at a time or all at once. > [*By normally I mean LHO did not see declarer start > to claim and then rapidly throw down a card to try to > get the claim turned into a revoke or something.] > I believe we all agree that if the first trick is allowed to be played, not claimed, then there has been a revoke, which will be established by either the second trick or the claim. > b) You got a TD with the DeWael/Sterling view of what a > claim is [a curtailment of play that should be adjudicated > on the basis of how play would have gone had it been > continued], but who hadn't read the WBFLC minutes or > refused to enforce them. > {BTW, it is worth mentioning that those who think > that I am excessively lenient on bad claimers should see > that here's a case where my view of claims is actually > more harsh than the current official legal interpretation.} > OK, let's change the case a little bit (and I believe you will agree with me that the small change may not affect the ruling). Declarer started with just 12 cards, missing the 2 of diamonds. Play goes as described, and when at the table, declarer claims with a complete and full statement : "I'll throw two hearts on the diamonds and the rest is high - 12 tricks". The board is scored and before the bidding starts on the next one, defenders start discussing their diamond lengths and the missing D2 is discovered under the table. Director ! Now surely if the WBFLC interpretation says that no revoke will occur then the the WBFLC consist of fools. I realize that the WBFLC will not meet in the next 10 months, so in the meantime, Ton, would you please give us your personal point of view? > >I don't feel strongly about this, and readily admit that putting two > >cards down at once > >might be correctly treated as a claim by the TD, even if it's not > >proper procedure. > > > >Marv > > I actually prefer claimers to put their cards down > serially, since it helps me understand their claims > better. I think Steve W. [was it?] is correct that we > shouldn't damn claimers both ways. As I said, I actually > prefer this one. > So do I. Possibly with the double take : showing all cards and then playing them in order. > Respectfully, > Grant > -- 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 Nov 9 04:02:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8H1lH29734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA8H1bH29720 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:01:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.75]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GtPT06166 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:55:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEA7B82.5DE1A2CB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:33:06 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c1661d$e71ff300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106150326.00a87380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BE90EC4.4F4814D5@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Tom, well, in that story - no revoke, claim, and 11 tricks. I have one separate opinion though. Although a player cannot be deemed to revoke within a claim, this is with one exception. If a player claims with only 12 cards in hand (originally), then I rule that he would not have found the 13th before having revoked, if such is possible in a normal line (or one included in the claim statement). The same could be true in the present case, where the diamond was stuck behind some other card. Depending on how it was stuck, I might be inclined to rule that claimer would indeed discard two hearts before playing that ace under which the diamond was stuck. So I could be found ruling 10 tricks here, if the facts were like that. jaycue@mindspring.com wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > At 13:40 6/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >Well Marv, if you did not tell those facts to the TD, how do > > >you expect him to give an adequate ruling. Of course the > > >revoke is now established, and the claim is for 12 tricks > > >(and correct), and you get a one or two trick penalty, > > >depending on whether it's the 4 or 2 remaining in hand (2=1 > > >trick - 4=2 trick, because the worst that can happen to > > >declarer is that he finds the 4 when the 3 is played, thus > > >making a trick with the revoked card). Ruling : +420 > > > > AG : I've a feeling that we discussed this kind of problem before, and that > > we considered that : > > 1) since play stops, there can be no revoke. > > 2) when coming at the point of the 'claimed revoke', one assumes declarer > > suddenly finds the last card (after all, an awake dummy would have asked > > him 'no more' ?), and the TD will impose the most unfavorable line of play > > (barring irrational ones) from that moment on. > > Here, it will lead to 11 tricks. > > > > If I'm wrong, Herman, please tell me why. > > > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > Because the second time round, Marv told us that two tricks > were played (with hearts discarded on diamonds) - so there > is a revoke. > > In that case, the worst that can happen is that the 4 of > diamonds (if it is in fact the 4 and not the 2) will make > one of the 12 tricks that are now "won", thus leading to a > 2-trick penalty. > > Of course all in the framework of Marv's second version. > > The tournament director told me, immediately after the game, that a claim was made, cards faced, and a > line of play was stated that included saying he was pitching hearts on diamonds. During the statement, > he realized he had a diamond. He had not played the diamonds before making his claim. > > Of course, in our club, most players are "nervous" when making a claim against Marvin, because of > MarvinX-Mozilla-Status: 0009for the director, his condescending tone at the table when the director > arrives, and the usual extremes of detail that "might have been". The director then, tries to > reconstruct the facts, as to what really happened at the table. Most times this gets interesting:-) > > Thanks, Tom -- 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 Nov 9 04:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8H2eQ29766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:02:40 +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 fA8H2QH29747 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:02:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.75]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GuGT06333 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:56:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEAB870.F1596D36@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:53:04 +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] Team in Switzerland References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Victor, welcome to the list - others will no doubt start asking you about cats and dogs, but I won't. Victor Badran wrote: > > Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following question. > And I think we did it wrong. > That is always a good way to start. > Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. > > 25. N/EW > > A8 > Qxxxxx > Q10xx > AJ > Qx xxxx > Kxx J10x > xxx AKJxx > KQxxxx x > KJ109xx > Ax > x > 1098x > > At one table they made 4S = 420. > > N E S W > 1H p 2D* > > *TD > There was a lot of talking at the table. > S intendet to open 2D multi. > TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to NS. > He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. > > NS appealed > > We decided to cancel the extra board. > We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. > I find that an eminently sensible decision, apart from the fact that you apparently consider NS at fault (if both are not at fault, the scores should not balance). NS are not at fault, they did not make the mistake that caused the board to be unplayable, the TD did. > But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have > canceled the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used > 25. > Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. > That is indeed the correct way to start the ruling. What is lacking here is something I have pleaded for for a long time already. There is no problem with the ruling. Board cancelled at this table and an ArtAS. That's simple. What is the problem is how to calculate this at teams. I think there should be some regulation that enables the AC to reason like this : "to NS: We assume that there is a 60% (*) chance that you will reach the contract of 4Sp, but since you are a non-offending side we award you 80% of 4Sp (that's a balance of 0) and 20% of 2Sp+2 (balance -6), that's -1.2 IMP. to EW: We assume that there is a 60% chance that they wil reach the contract of 4Sp, but since you are a non-offending side we award you 40% of 4Sp (0) and 60% of 2Sp+2 (+6), that's +3.6 IMP to you. Of course each puts that with the normal IMPs and the team result will be 16-15 or something like that" (*) I have made no attempt whatsoever at any correctness in determining this percentage. > PS. It is normal that there is no director during these league > competitions in Switzerland. It shouldn't be like this, but it is. > I'm sure that is not because of lack of TD's, but if it is, I'm willing to come and help, if the FSB pay the fare. -- 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 Nov 9 04:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8H2et29765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:02:40 +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 fA8H2NH29744 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:02:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.75]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA8GuDT06327 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:56:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEAB80E.AB7E3864@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:51:26 +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] Team in Switzerland References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108142514.00a16d00@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: > > > PS : don't feel guilty for the TDing conditions in Switzerland. We've got > the same bad ones here in Belgium. > As in : no director is better than one HDw ? This is their first division ! -- 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 Nov 9 04:19:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8HIsw29792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:18:54 +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 fA8HImH29788 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:18:49 +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 fA8HCdw20748 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:12:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002b01c16878$78c93120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:03:46 -0800 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 > > >Hey, I didn't write the CoP. As with the ACBL, those who write > >such things are duty-bound to document what they believe to be > >"normal" or "general." > > > >I'll start: > > > >Single jumps are strong > >Double jump overcalls are weak defensively > >Opening bids in a suit at the three level, or four of a minor, > >are weak defensively > >Opening game bids in first or second seat are weak defensively > >Opening notrump bids show a balanced hand > >Non-competitive raises or re-raises to one level below game are > >invitational > >Doubles of opening suit bids at the three level or below are for > >takeout > >Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." > >Simple new suit responses by an unpassed hand to an opening bid > >of one in a suit are forcing > > > >(please don't nitpick these, I'm just trying to make a point) > > > >I could go on and on. Departures from these normal, general, > >practices must be disclosed, but they themselves need not be > >disclosed (L75C). > > Now, the trouble with this approach is that what you have > defined as normal here is normal *for the ACBL*. That does > not make such things normal in international competition. No, what I have defined here is normal world-wide, as you now admit: > > To be fair, most are. But of course you have chosen ones that > are similar worldwide. Yes, of course, that was my intent, and there are many others. > However, the actual sequence that started this is > definitely not one with a "normal" treatment. A jump shift after > passing has four fairly common meanings, Fit Jumps, natural and > invitational, weak and pre-emptive, Bergen. To suggest any one of > these is normal in an international competition is just wrong, > even if you can be sure what normal is in the ACBL - and I > remember an argument I lost in the EBU when I claimed there was > a normal meaning for this sequence > in the EBU [I claimed Fit Jumps were normal, but was convinced > that natural and invitational was just as normal]. > The jump to 3H had to be strong (for a passed hand). I believe East suspected it was perhaps weak, hence his 3NT bid. Whether it also showed spade support was unimportant, even if disclosable. If East argued that an apparent opposing misfit made his 3NT bid more attractive, so he was damaged by the lack of disclosure about the spade support, that might be a reasonable argument. As I understand the case, it was the strength of South's hand, strong or weak, that mattered, not its composition. Strong is normal, so failure to communicate that was not an infraction, even if failure to disclose South's spade support was. North should have passed a note, perhaps: "Shows spade support too." That's all. In the absence of further disclosure, South has to have hearts and a good hand. Single jumps are strong, heart bids are natural, and neither agreement is "special." Whatever, forget that case. I am just trying to establish a principle: What is normal and general is not "special," as the CoP says, and per L75C only special partnership information need be disclosed. I esteem Grattan very highly, but think he is stretching to say otherwise. I often play with a partner whose knowledge of what is "normal" is rather weak. Once the auction went 1C-1H-3S by her, and my life master LHO wanted to know the meaning of the unAlerted 3S. It was a double jump, passed by me, and therefore had to be weak with long spades. The TD, of the Grattan school, insisted that I explain 3S. I considered that an illegal instruction and refused to do so. Why? Because this partner might not have a normal 3S bid, and my explanation would be UI. Then, after LHO bid 4H, she could not bid 4S with seven to the AKQ, as would be automatic absent the UI. Besides, a LM ought to know what 3S means. It's not my duty to teach bridge to ignorant LMs. This was the case I sent to Edgar, who replied that I was in the right. Her actual hand was seven spades QJ10 and three xx's outside, just right when not playing weak jumps. When it came up again several years later, I possessed partnership experience with the bid, but it was nothing "special," so again I refused to explain it. The TD was Max Hardy, who knew my position and its legality. Max found a clever way to satisfy the irate opponent. He asked if 3S was Alerted. No? "Then it has to be natural and weak," he said, and walked away. 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 Nov 9 04:32:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8HWBg29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 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 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 fA8HW5H29801 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:32:05 +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 fA8HPvw00799 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:25:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c1687a$539ecf20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111081212.MAA20210@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Passes of a redouble; was Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:22:13 -0800 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" > Marvin French wrote: > > > Hey, I didn't write the CoP. As with the ACBL, those who write such > > things are duty-bound to document what they believe to be "normal" > > or "general." > > > > I'll start: > > > > Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." > [others snipped] > > This not laws/regulations related: but is this agreement normal? I asked that my off-the-cuff examples not be nit-picked, Robin, shame on you. :)) > > In the places were it is normal, don't you get a lot of psychic > redoubles when parter of the takeout doubler may be passing for > penalties? 1S-X-Rdbl-P to play is most abnormal world-wide, I believe, although I know one expert pair in San Diego who have that understanding. The possibility of a psychic redouble is remote, considering that the next hand rarely makes a penalty pass. An interesting question is whether a pass to play has to be Alerted or disclosed on the CC. The potential redoubler (initial action) cannot adjust his system according to the meaning of LHO's pass (counter action), so theoretically there is no requirement for disclosure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 04:36:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8HZs229817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA8HZkH29813 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:35:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-66.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.66]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fA8HTXP22380 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:29:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00e201c1687b$9847e840$423d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:33:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > I'll start: and I'll nitpick by stating what I would consider the default meaning without any discussion of system ;-) > Single jumps are strong single jumps over minors are weak a single jump over partner's 1M opener is a mini-splinter > Double jump overcalls are weak defensively yep (except when game) > Opening bids in a suit at the three level, or four of a minor, are > weak defensively four of a minor is namyats (or possibly two-way). > Opening game bids in first or second seat are weak defensively not necessarily > Opening notrump bids show a balanced hand opening 1NT and 2NT bids show a balanced or a semi-balanced hand > Non-competitive raises or re-raises to one level below game are > invitational such raises are always preemptive > Doubles of opening suit bids at the three level or below are for > takeout partner might take undiscussed doubles of three level opening bids as 'takeout', 'optional', or 'penalty'. > Passes of a redouble of a takeout double are not "to play." pass is penalty pass if you are sitting behind opener (see David Burn's examples) > Simple new suit responses by an unpassed hand to an opening bid of > one in a suit are forcing yep. I.e., the methods which are commonly played where I play are quite different to what is 'normal' in ACBL-land. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 05:34:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8IXwN29850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:33:58 +1100 (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 fA8IXpH29846 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:33:52 +1100 (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 SAA02203 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:27:36 GMT Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Passes_of_a_redouble?= 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: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:27:35 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 08.11.2001 18:27:35 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 fA8IXsH29847 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" Pour : Envoyé par : cc : owner-bridge-laws@rgb. Objet : Re: Passes of a redouble; was Re: anu.edu.au [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris 08/11/01 18:22 Veuillez répondre à "Marvin L. French" > Marvin French wrote: > ... 1S-X-Rdbl-P to play is most abnormal world-wide, I believe, although I know one expert pair in San Diego who have that understanding. The possibility of a psychic redouble is remote, considering that the next hand rarely makes a penalty pass. An interesting question is whether a pass to play has to be Alerted or disclosed on the CC. The potential redoubler (initial action) cannot adjust his system according to the meaning of LHO's pass (counter action), so theoretically there is no requirement for disclosure. *** i am sadly puzzled to read you to advocate not to disclose an agreement that opponents are certain not to be aware. theoretically and ethically it is imho mandatory to make them know even if it will not allow them to adjust their redouble strategy. you can't know in their place whether they want to know for some other purpose. I happen to have this special agreement (i don't live in san diego !), i have an entry on my cc ("consenting pass over doubles or redoubles of partner's take-out calls"), and i alert either a pass or a call following 1S x xx. I think it may be of some importance to know that a 2C bid in this sequence is not a volontary bid but may be made with 3 cards only to avoid playing in 1Sxx. jp rocafort **** Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 09:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA8M8pJ08701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:08:51 +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 fA8M8jH08697 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:08:45 +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 fA8M2aw07506 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:02:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00c101c168a0$f035d380$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Réf. : Re: Passes of a redouble Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:58:50 -0800 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 jp rocafort > Marvin French wrote: > ... 1S-X-Rdbl-P to play is most abnormal world-wide, I believe, although I know one expert pair in San Diego who have that understanding. The possibility of a psychic redouble is remote, considering that the next hand rarely makes a penalty pass. An interesting question is whether a pass to play has to be Alerted or disclosed on the CC. The potential redoubler (initial action) cannot adjust his system according to the meaning of LHO's pass (counter action), so theoretically there is no requirement for disclosure. jp wrote: i am sadly puzzled to read you to advocate not to disclose an agreement that opponents are certain not to be aware. theoretically and ethically it is imho mandatory to make them know even if it will not allow them to adjust their redouble strategy. you can't know in their place whether they want to know for some other purpose. I happen to have this special agreement (i don't live in san diego !), i have an entry on my cc ("consenting pass over doubles or redoubles of partner's take-out calls"), and i alert either a pass or a call following 1S x xx. I think it may be of some importance to know that a 2C bid in this sequence is not a volontary bid but may be made with 3 cards only to avoid playing in 1Sxx. ########### I wrote the above a little bit tongue-in-cheek, not sérieusement, and I said "theoretically," meaning maybe not in actual practice. I myself don't play anything strange, so I have no ethical dilemma. We had a long debate on this subject a while back, and I believe the consensus was in accordance with the ACBL principle: One cannot change an element of one's system according to what an opposing counter to that element might be. You might like to know that I play optional doubles of preemptive bids so you can play sound preempts instead of your usual light preempts (as indicated on the CC), but that would be a change of system, not allowed within a session. If you can't change, what is your need to know? Of course an Alertable counter is Alerted when it is made, and that is sufficient disclosure. Yes, the consenting pass should be Alerted, but I see no need for a redoubler to know that understanding in advance, since he can't change his redoubling system accordingly. I went so far as to say that countermeasures should not be disclosed until they are employed, which would entail putting them on a hidden side of the CC until they come up. These include, but are not limited to: Actions over a takeout double Actions over a preemptive opening Actions over an overcall (double negative or penalty) Defenses vs one notrump openings (double artificial or penalty) Private joke to DWS and SW: "not limited to" does not mean anything can be hidden. I see this as a logical extension of the general principle stated above. It involves full disclosure, but at an appropriate time. Before the start of a match, each side may examine opposing initial actions and adjust responses to them accordingly. That is permitted. The initial actions cannot be changed, so there is no need for pairs to know about opposing responses until they are employed. Cheating a bit when knowing about them would be hard to detect, so I prefer that they remain unknown until used. A side issue is whether one's system elements can be adjusted a bit after the opposing countermeasures are known. I'd like to say no, but Eric convinced me that minor adjustments of strength or length are permissible as long as they do not (as a matter of partnership agreement) extend beyond the boundaries shown on the CC. Variations outside the boundaries, if based solely on style and judgment, are okay as long as partner does not anticipate and allow for them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 11:53:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA90qhU09854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:52:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA90qaH09850 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:52:38 +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 AAA14442 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:46:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:44:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@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 <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >Dar blmlists, > >Some recent threads treated in a secondary way the matter of designating a >card 'in any other way'. >I'm wondering how far 'any other' can go. >In a recent incident (quite rapidly ironed out in laughter), it was the >cetral point : > >There is a well-known (perhaps not so well-known, as you will see) French >nursery rhyme that begins with 'pique et pique et colegram'. > >Some funny guy was declaring a NT contract. Spades were around the table as >follows : > > KQxx > 10xx Jxx > > Axx > >At trick 5, he played AS. At trick 6, spade to the King, then he called >'Dame de Pique' (Queen of spades), and seeing the favorable lie, 'et >colegram' (more or less funnily intending to mean > 'et pique' ...) >Dummy reached for the last spade, whereupon the defenders objected, because >Dummy had suggested that a card be played, without indication in this sense >from declarer (L45F). > >The question is : did declarer 'designate the card to be played' assuming : >1) that everybody would get the trick : 'et colegram' meaning of course >(?) 'et pique' >2) that the joke is more or less private > assuming all players know the rhyme, then clearly and unambiguously intended. If I'm running the diamond suit I'll call "and the beer" given appropriate opponents. cheers john >(assuming, as always, that NS aren't cheating, and that Declarer's >intention was *not* to ask Dummy to select a card) > >Thank you for your views. > >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 Fri Nov 9 18:54:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA97rMj26804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 18:53:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA97rFH26800 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 18:53:16 +1100 (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 HAA03185 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:46:57 GMT Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]=3APasses_of_a_redouble?= 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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:46:56 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 09.11.2001 07:46:58 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 fA97rIH26801 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" Pour : Envoyé par : cc : owner-bridge-laws@rgb. Objet : Re: [BLML] Réf. : Re: Passes of a anu.edu.au redouble 08/11/01 22:58 Veuillez répondre à "Marvin L. French" >From jp rocafort > Marvin French wrote: > ... We had a long debate on this subject a while back, and I believe the consensus was in accordance with the ACBL principle: One cannot change an element of one's system according to what an opposing counter to that element might be. You might like to know that I play optional doubles of preemptive bids so you can play sound preempts instead of your usual light preempts (as indicated on the CC), but that would be a change of system, not allowed within a session. If you can't change, what is your need to know? Of course an Alertable counter is Alerted when it is made, and that is sufficient disclosure. *** i agree with the logics of chronological order for choice of system elements but you may need to know opponents' strategy to adapt your subsquent bidding. suppose you open 1NT: opponents will not tell you in advance how they bid in intervention to be sure you will not bend your 1NT opening criteria but you want to know in order to agree the meanings of opener's partner calls. what is the more important? how do you resolve the dilemma? jp rocafort *** Yes, the consenting pass should be Alerted, but I see no need for a redoubler to know that understanding in advance, since he can't change his redoubling system accordingly. I went so far as to say that countermeasures should not be disclosed until they are employed, which would entail putting them on a hidden side of the CC until they come up. These include, but are not limited to: Actions over a takeout double Actions over a preemptive opening Actions over an overcall (double negative or penalty) Defenses vs one notrump openings (double artificial or penalty) Private joke to DWS and SW: "not limited to" does not mean anything can be hidden. I see this as a logical extension of the general principle stated above. It involves full disclosure, but at an appropriate time. Before the start of a match, each side may examine opposing initial actions and adjust responses to them accordingly. That is permitted. The initial actions cannot be changed, so there is no need for pairs to know about opposing responses until they are employed. Cheating a bit when knowing about them would be hard to detect, so I prefer that they remain unknown until used. A side issue is whether one's system elements can be adjusted a bit after the opposing countermeasures are known. I'd like to say no, but Eric convinced me that minor adjustments of strength or length are permissible as long as they do not (as a matter of partnership agreement) extend beyond the boundaries shown on the CC. Variations outside the boundaries, if based solely on style and judgment, are okay as long as partner does not anticipate and allow for them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 9 20:25:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA99OEc26843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:24:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fA99O7H26839 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:24:08 +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 KAA12342; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:16:34 +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 KAA12670; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:17:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011109101453.02442c90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:18:23 +0100 To: "David Burn" , blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram In-Reply-To: <003501c16867$93b94f80$273f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@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 15:10 8/11/2001 +0000, you wrote: >Mais ce miracle, nous le verrons quand? >Quand les poules auront les dents. AG : hmm. I've read that they had, about 30 million years ago. That being said, I think imprecisions in any law text (or erros in a text being edited) may be cut by a specific percentage in a fixed amount of time (kind of Law of Diminishing Solutions). This means the amount of imprecisions will never become 0, so your odontogallinaceous appreciation might well be right. 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 Nov 9 20:33:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA99XL426856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:33:21 +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 fA99XEH26852 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:33:15 +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 KAA13920; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:25:41 +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 KAA20936; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:26:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011109102322.02440d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:27:30 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland In-Reply-To: <3BEAB80E.AB7E3864@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108142514.00a16d00@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 17:51 8/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > > > PS : don't feel guilty for the TDing conditions in Switzerland. We've got > > the same bad ones here in Belgium. > > > >As in : no director is better than one HDw ? AG : well done, Herman. Your sentence may be read either as : - it's better to have no director than to have one HDw - there is no better director than that guy HDw Most of us will agree with one of those two sentences :-S , although perhaps the votes will be split (like these bidding competitions where 1/3 of the experts voted for 4NT BW, another 1/3 for 4NT natural, thus makng 4NT the consensus answer) >This is their first division ! Oops, sorry, Victor said '1st league'. I rapidly asked myself if we had TDs here in eerste liga (for the uninitiated : 4th division) and answered 'it's normal, you know'. 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 Nov 9 23:35:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA9CYqZ28869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 23:34:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.kpnqwest.ch (mail.eunet.ch [146.228.10.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fA9CYkH28865 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 23:34:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [194.230.132.131] (pop-mu-3-1-dialup-131.freesurf.ch [194.230.132.131]) by mail.kpnqwest.ch (8.9.3/1.34) via ESMTP id NAA55613 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:28:27 +0100 (CET) env-from (victor@veloblitz.ch) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: velobli2@pop.eunet.ch Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:29:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Victor Badran Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk these swiss have many leagues and no td's at all. not even in the highest, A, they have one, nor do they have duplicated hands. no money they say. and sorry for that extra heart x in the north hand. victor >At 17:51 8/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>> PS : don't feel guilty for the TDing conditions in Switzerland. We've got >>> the same bad ones here in Belgium. >>> >> >>As in : no director is better than one HDw ? > >AG : well done, Herman. Your sentence may be read either as : >- it's better to have no director than to have one HDw >- there is no better director than that guy HDw >Most of us will agree with one of those two sentences :-S , although >perhaps the votes will be split >(like these bidding competitions where 1/3 of the experts voted for >4NT BW, another 1/3 for 4NT natural, thus makng 4NT the consensus >answer) > >>This is their first division ! > >Oops, sorry, Victor said '1st league'. I rapidly asked myself if we >had TDs here in eerste liga (for the uninitiated : 4th division) and >answered 'it's normal, you know'. > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 10 09:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fA9MUGP27271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:30:16 +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 fA9MTZH27129 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:29:40 +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 fA9MLmx14745; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:21:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011108135225.00a18460@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 16:23:23 -0600 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram Cc: blML In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011108143213.00a20b40@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 03:06 PM 11/8/01 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Dar blmlists, > >Some recent threads treated in a secondary way the matter of designating a >card 'in any other way'. >I'm wondering how far 'any other' can go. >In a recent incident (quite rapidly ironed out in laughter), it was the >cetral point : > >There is a well-known (perhaps not so well-known, as you will see) French >nursery rhyme that begins with 'pique et pique et colegram'. > >Some funny guy was declaring a NT contract. Spades were around the table >as follows : > > KQxx > 10xx Jxx > > Axx > >At trick 5, he played AS. At trick 6, spade to the King, then he called >'Dame de Pique' (Queen of spades), and seeing the favorable lie, 'et >colegram' (more or less funnily intending to mean > 'et pique' ...) >Dummy reached for the last spade, whereupon the defenders objected, >because Dummy had suggested that a card be played, without indication in >this sense from declarer (L45F). > >The question is : did declarer 'designate the card to be played' assuming : >1) that everybody would get the trick : 'et colegram' meaning of course >(?) 'et pique' >2) that the joke is more or less private Well, we have to start with something else first. The first question we have to ask is whether dummy has violated L45F. Obviously not, on the given evidence. Dummy act did not constitute a suggestion to declarer, but rather an attempt to follow what dummy thought were declarer's intentions. No violation. _Now_ we ask whether declarer has in fact designated this card to be played. I think the answer is that if declarer was in fact attempting to get dummy to play that card, then he has in fact 'otherwise designated' it, and if he wasn't he hasn't. [Obviously, as a TD he has to convince me which it is, but I am prepared to be convinced.] If your '2)' is the case, then declarer's action is moderately obnoxious [if he doesn't immediately add the command to play the spade], but I see no reason to expect the laws of bridge to outlaw all _unintentionally_ obnoxious behavior. If declarer has intentionally done this to annoy his opponents, then he was in violation of the law for _that_ reason, and subject to a PP. If '1)' is the case, then 'no harm, no foul'. This is only a problem if defender assumes that declarer meant some other card and plays before dummy does or plays without asking dummy why he did what he did. We've argued that case to death. >(assuming, as always, that NS aren't cheating, and that Declarer's >intention was *not* to ask Dummy to select a card) > >Thank you for your views. > >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 Sat Nov 10 16:16:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAA5GFc18156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:16:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAA5G9H18152 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:16:10 +1100 (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 fAA59wB13976 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:09:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001801c169a5$d847f7c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Réf. : Re: [BLML]:Passes of a redouble Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:08:07 -0800 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 jp rocafort wrote: > Marvin French wrote: We had a long debate on this subject a while back, and I believe the consensus was in accordance with the ACBL principle: One cannot change an element of one's system according to what an opposing counter to that element might be. You might like to know that I play optional doubles of preemptive bids so you can play sound preempts instead of your usual light preempts (as indicated on the CC), but that would be a change of system, not allowed within a session. If you can't change, what is your need to know? Of course an Alertable counter is Alerted when it is made, and that is sufficient disclosure. *** i agree with the logics of chronological order for choice of system elements but you may need to know opponents' strategy to adapt your subsquent bidding. suppose you open 1NT: opponents will not tell you in advance how they bid in intervention to be sure you will not bend your 1NT opening criteria but you want to know in order to agree the meanings of opener's partner calls. what is the more important? how do you resolve the dilemma? jp rocafort *** I would say you have to have a generic system of responses, as I do, to cope with any sort of interference. Or, develop a system of responses to deal with every notrump intervention method described on David Stevenson's website. If I had to tell you my system of notrump intervention, then you would have to tell me the responses you will use. Could I not then change my system to foil those methods? Then you would change again, then I would change, then you, etc. Where does it end? It could be that I am taking this principle to a ridiculous extreme, and I doubt that many are joining me. I'm just trying to be logical. 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 Nov 11 05:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAAIg6705609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:42:06 +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 fAAIg0H05605 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:42:01 +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 fAAIZmw16913 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:35:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:32:14 -0800 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 Things are a little slow on BLML, so I'll throw in an easy one. Sectional championship in San Diego 20 Nov 2001 Friday afternoon 2:30 pm Stratified Pairs (All pair events are one-session stratified, straight Mitchell movement with overall awards) Board 17 Vulnerability: none Dealer: North S- Q984 H- AQ1084 D- 932 C- 8 S- AKJ63 S- 105 H- 762 H- 53 D- 54 D- AKQ875 C- K32 C- Q94 S- 72 H- KJ9 D- J10 C- AJ10765 The bidding: West North East South -- P 2D* P 3S P 3NT All pass * Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. Before the opening lead, East leaves table to talk to the TD, who returns and says play the hand out. Club is led, +400 for E/W. Ruling by retired Associate National Director of the ACBL: Result stands. Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. I say 4S down two undoubled, E/W -100. What do you say? 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 Nov 11 07:38:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAAKbxc05652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:37:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAAKbrH05648 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:37:54 +1100 (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 fAAKVZm12158; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:31:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:29:01 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. I confess that this is one of the things I don't think I understand about these situations. I thought that West's explanation is UI to East, and so he knows that West thinks he has a mini-roman opening, so he knows that West is just bidding the limit of his hand on that basis. I do not see that the TDs justification is, what word do I want? Reasonable? Allowable? Anyway, I don't think it's right. OTOH, the elements required for redress are (1) there was UI, (2) receiver of it chose an LA which might have been chosen by it, and (3) damage resulted. I would imagine (3) is fairly certain, and it seems (1) is too. What about (2)? Does "I think you have a mini-roman hand" suggest bidding 3NT? Is there an LA? I'm gonna get in trouble here, I'm sure. ISTR being told that it's not that West chose a suggested LA in 3NT, it's that there was another LA that *wasn't* chosen. Like, say, 4S. I suppose that's an LA (though most of my partners would probably pass). :-) BTW, you didn't say, but I inferred, that their agreement was "weak", not "mini-roman". If it was the latter, then if I understand it right, East still has UI (now she knows she mis-bid) but I don't know how it affects her obligations. I dunno. Maybe I just have a blind spot where this situation is concerned. :-( 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/AwUBO+2Oqb2UW3au93vOEQLoJQCgnDkokbNhB2DzBXd46VGkEEJbj5gAoOGd eVktvX5WVKX48EVBM+kWBheg =u/1I -----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 Nov 11 09:02:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAAM27R06411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:02:08 +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 fAAM22H06407 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:02:02 +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 fAALtnw09584 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:55:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:52:57 -0800 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" > Marvin French wrote: > > >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it > >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. > > I do not see that the TDs justification is, what word do I > want? Reasonable? Allowable? Anyway, I don't think it's right. Just give me some words I can show to her. She wouldn't believe anything coming from me. > I confess that this is one of the things I don't think I understand > about these situations. I thought that West's explanation is UI to > East, and so he knows that West thinks he has a mini-roman opening, > so he knows that West is just bidding the limit of his hand on that > basis. I do not see that the TDs justification is, what word do I > want? Reasonable? Allowable? Anyway, I don't think it's right. OTOH, > the elements required for redress are (1) there was UI, (2) receiver > of it chose an LA which might have been chosen by it, and (3) damage > resulted. I would imagine (3) is fairly certain, and it seems (1) is > too. What about (2)? Does "I think you have a mini-roman hand" > suggest bidding 3NT? Is there an LA? I'm gonna get in trouble here, > I'm sure. ISTR being told that it's not that West chose a suggested > LA in 3NT, it's that there was another LA that *wasn't* chosen. Like, > say, 4S. I suppose that's an LA (though most of my partners would > probably pass). :-) Not sure I follow that, but I gave East's hand to a number of weak-two players and asked what they would do if partner responded with an undiscussed 3S to a 2D opening. Some passed, some bid 4S, and some bid 4D. None said they would bid 3NT. I think that's clear evidence that the 3NT bid was occasioned by the UI, in the absence of which 3NT would certainly have not been bid. Again we have a problem with the word "suggested" in L16, and I wish they would change it. Of course 3S doesn't suggest a 3NT bid, how could it? It suggests a spade contract, not a notrump contract. However, in the sense used in L16 (brought to mind), 3NT was suggested to East by the UI. "At least if I bid 3NT she will know that I don't have spades, even if she will assume I have a three-suited hand," could have been her thinking. In short, you can't make a call that would not have been made absent the UI. Passing 3S or bidding 4S is certainly logical, but bidding 3NT with that hand is not. Had she bid 4D, passed out and down one, that would have been more interesting. > BTW, you didn't say, but I inferred, that their agreement was "weak", > not "mini-roman". If it was the latter, then if I understand it > right, East still has UI (now she knows she mis-bid) but I don't know > how it affects her obligations. > Their agreement was as I wrote: 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4 with four spades for sure. Or maybe it was 11-14 or 12-15, I'm not sure, and don't see that it matters. It was right for West to explain 2D in those terms rather than use the name of a convention, which is improper in the ACBL (although common). Both CCs were marked accordingly. > > I dunno. Maybe I just have a blind spot where this situation is concerned. :-( When East bid 3NT over 3S, I (South) naively assumed she had forgotten the four-spade requirement, which would make her bid legal, I suppose, with a 1=4=4=4 hand. It didn't occur to me that she might have a weak two bid in diamonds, especially since this inexperienced player didn't flinch when hearing partner's explanation. Good for her. 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 Nov 11 09:24:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAAMOI106432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:24:18 +1100 (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 fAAMOCH06428 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:24:13 +1100 (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 fAAMGcm19560; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 17:16:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 17:15:04 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:52 PM -0800 11/10/01, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it > > >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. > > > > I do not see that the TDs justification is, what word do I > > want? Reasonable? Allowable? Anyway, I don't think it's right. > >Just give me some words I can show to her. She wouldn't believe >anything coming from me. It seems to me the question is "does an unusual action by a partner who has given UI, given the caller's understanding, at the time he made it, of the meaning of his own call, obviate the caller's obligation not to take an action which might have been suggested by the UI"? I defer to the experts here - I think not, but I dunno. 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/AwUBO+2nk72UW3au93vOEQJPZgCgw4HU9F8XxsvfHpbk0iq5GliSduIAoP+S /Kg8mfNaeCeKAfmV4bwbKFq5 =9A1h -----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 Nov 11 16:47:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAB5kYi13993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 16:46:34 +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 fAB5kSH13989 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 16:46:28 +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 fAB5eFw17792; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:40:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <014501c16a73$150c5e80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:38:12 -0800 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 > > Sectional championship in San Diego 20 Nov 2001 > Friday afternoon 2:30 pm Stratified Pairs Okay, so I got the date wrong, it was 9 November. 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 Sun Nov 11 17:33:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAB6Wwv14233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:32:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAB6WrH14229 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:32:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from sam ([63.207.143.164]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMM008D5HWCIB@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:26:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:35:49 -0800 From: jaycue@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_16H] Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I applaud the discussions here by the BLML newsgroup. I'm an infrequent visitor here, but am always impressed at how deeply and fairly issues are analyzed. These efforts help to improve the rules of competitive bridge and how directors rule the game we love so much. As most of these discussions are fairly lengthy and sometimes complicated, this is an excellent medium to have the theoretical discussions about issues. I wish more directors would have the patience and the desire to read your posts. Unfortunately, I suspect only an extremely small percentage do. I believe Gary Blaiss is actually the "head director" at the ACBL, and wonder whether he takes the time to digest these posts. Most bridge administrators are also aware that a majority of the bridge players in the ACBL, and almost all social bridge players believe the rules are too complicated to understand. At the Toronto Nationals, there was a proposal to have players state the range of the 15-17 point no trump opening bids, also. This was defeated because the documentation was five pages in length and was thought that most bridge players would find this too tedious to understand and feel it too ludicrous to adopt. I'm sure you all have discussed the issues involved in that decision. While this rule may be clearly acceptable and needed in the Blue Ribbon Pairs event, it just adds confusion to club games and, unfortunately, for most club directors and owners. Once you all come to a recommendation about adding, changing, or deleting a rule of law in bridge, and the bridge administrators adopt your recommendation, it clearly becomes a much bigger and more difficult practice on how to educate the club player, director and owner, while still keeping the social bridge player from throwing up their arms in despair at all the changes and confusion. It's often been stated lately that this may be one of the larger reasons that ACBL membership is dwindling. The issue Marvin brings to you has many valid theoretical points to discuss. I'm sure this is the arena for those discussions. You don't really need to know all the facts, because your posts will cover all the scenarios that may arise and revolve around a more theoretical, "what if" perspective. The actual facts of the incident are important from a perspective of how best to mitigate these issues involving club directors and novice players. I'm not sure this is the proper forum and if not, I apologize for taking your time. Much effort is now spent on how to make the game less confusing and more fun for the novice player. This incident arises from a San Diego Unit club game. Unit games are held twice a month on Sunday at our local full-service bridge club. This was an NAOP Unit qualifier, the club space rented by the Unit and director hired by the Unit. The director resides in the Vista area and drives forty-five minutes to direct these Unit games in San Diego. The four players at the table, when the issue arose, were clearly not "novice" players. I will interject with my thoughts. --------------- > The tournament director told me, immediately after the game, that a claim was made, cards faced, and a > line of play was stated that included saying he was pitching hearts on diamonds. During the statement, > he realized he had a diamond. He had not played the diamonds before making his claim. Marvin writes: Why do you believe this novice director instead of me? I asked my wife just now what she recalled exactly, and she said declarer played a good diamond from dummy, faced two hearts, said he was playing them on the diamonds, and then faced his remaining cards. She was quite clear on this, and if you think Alice would lie for me, then you don't know Alice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I asked the TD the night of the event. I also asked the TD today, Sunday. He again said that nothing was said by Marvin, nor anyone else at the table about the fact that cards were played before the claim. In fact, this was completely knew to him when I told him about Marvin's "correction" post after his first post. I've known Alice for many years. She is so ethical and honest that I would never believe that she would lie. She has an interpretation of what happened at the table and if I were the TD that had been called to the table, I would probably give more weight to her version, than the other three, because she is so totally honest, and just a little more "naïve" as to the issues involved. I have not heard Alice's version, but will be sure to ask when I see her next. I have played over 100 hands of bridge against each of the four players at the table. I would believe the TD because he's the neutral party, and my experience with Marvin's explanations in the past (I've been at the table with Marvin when a TD has been called about 10 times, and have been close enough to a table to hear all the discussions with Marvin when a TD has been called another 10 times). Many of those instances, Marvin has been so emotional as to show bias during his explanation of the events. I also have seen poor Alice's eyes roll up and show an expression as if saying, "Here we go again!!" when Marvin starts interrogating the players at the table when an irregularity occurs. After a minute of intimidating players, he barks for a tournament director. There have been a few times that I've not called a director to the table to save Alice from another of Marvin's ordeals. ---------------------------------------- > Of course, in our club, most players are "nervous" when making a claim against Marvin, because of > Marvin's frequent "yelling" for the director, his condescending tone at the table when the director > arrives, and the usual extremes of detail that "might have been". Marvin writes: The claimer was a veteran player, tough as nails, whom I have known for 40 years. He wasn't nervous at all, I can assure you. There certainly was no unpleasantness at the table. The TD made no attempt to find out exactly what had occurred, but merely ruled in my favor tentatively, and then returned and changed the ruling with no explanation. That's typical of this inexperienced director. I am always truthful, believe it or not, and I call for the TD as required, saying "Director please." I may repeat it in a louder voice if no TD seems to be within hearing distance. Am I not required to call the TD when a possible infraction has occurred, or when I am inclined to dispute a claim? "Condescending?" Maybe, although I'm not sure what that means. In former years I was admittedly a bit confrontational with some TDs, but I have since mellowed. ------------------------------------------ Marvin, I have played over 100 rounds of bridge during the last couple years against the pair in question. Yes, they have been probably been playing for over 40 years. They do play their own bastardized version of a big club. The overwhelming consensus of the club crowd, where they play nearly every afternoon, is that the two never alert their bids because "we don't have an agreement" on many of their bidding sequences. They assume this is part of the club system, but clearly don't understand that their version is so non-standard, that they must alert many of their bids. Early on, I called the director numerous times because they failed to alert one of their bids. Each time the director came to the table, the male player became red in the face, his blood pressure rises, and he states that they have no agreement, and therefore he doesn't have to alert the bid. On one occasion, his partner actually started crying when the TD came to the table. He becomes so agitated, that I frequently don't call the director to the table anymore. It's not worth the hassle in a club game, but I certainly would during a national event. During the post-mortem, he usually admits that there's been a failure to alert or he should have made an announcement before the opening lead. Clearly this works to their benefit against most of the club players in their afternoon games. I have yet to come up with an amicable procedure on how to "educate" these two. Clearly the San Diego club director/owner hasn't taken that responsibility for fear of losing their business. At another San Diego County club, Escondido, the club director/owner goes to further extremes to protect his afternoon game against "outside interference". Ironically, Marvin's and Alice's bidding style brings forward an interesting discussion. They've played for years and Alice, in all her naivety, still makes bids that are not part of the system, and opening leads that don't conform to the agreements marked on the card. These are honest mistakes by Alice, and you are to be commended for having to put up with so many. But when asked, you quietly sit there and say "I don't know." If Alice makes the same mistake repeatedly, I think you do "know". Should you be obligated to disclose that information as part of your "agreement"?. The TD told me he said to score it as plus 420 when he left the table because he had all the facts, and he wanted to think about his decision. The TD said that he did not know the ruling, but since Marvin "knew the laws" and is an expert, he would trust his judgement for now, score it up as +420 while he went to research the answer. After reviewing the laws, the TD went back and said to score it as +450. "Inexperienced, novice director"!! Marvin you're so out-of-line here, that it's almost criminal. This TD makes better rulings at the table than Betty Bratcher, a national director who is co-head director at the Las Vegas nationals. To be fair, Betty is so good at administration that she dazzles everyone. But she doesn't make rulings at the table. Her husband, Bob, who's directed for decades, makes disastrously, ridiculous rulings at the table. In fact, the TD called Betty and Bob and conferred with them about this incident. Both Betty and Bob ruled that their was a revoke. The TD described the incident just as Marvin did in his initial post. Here the two most very senior experienced directors clearly thought there could be a revoke after a claim had been made!!!! Wow! This is a "typical" ruling of these two most experienced directors. Betty a National Director in charge of the Las Vegas Nationals!!! Too amazing. This director is young, hasn't directed many games, but sincerely puts more effort into his decisions than most. And he's sober, unlike most of our "experienced" directors in Southern California. Marvin, this guy really tries, and does respect your expertise. That's why he scored it +420, because he really wanted to consider your argument despite the fact that you say the most at the table. Marvin, I've never heard you say Please, when calling the director. Yes, you've improved immensely, but you've still got a ways to go. Your style is to try to intimidate the players at the table, especially if they're women, and then loudly say, "Director!", while staying cold-faced, agitated, and unpleasant until the director arrives. I've always been uncomfortable when you've done this, especially when first starting to play against you. Now I'm not afraid to let you know that you've crossed the line. Your explanations to the director are biased and often exclude information that is pertinent. Condescending means that you talk down to the players and the directors. You think you know more than they! The egregious part of this story is that your behavior clearly intimidates "novice" players. And most of the "good" players in San Diego agree with this assessment, as you well know. Part of your intimidation tactics here, was to show displeasure at the ruling of the TD, and request a committee to review the ruling. You were on your last round when this incident came up. The TD started to gather a committee while trying to finish entering scores in the computer. I think after you discussed this matter with other players, you told the TD that you had another appointment immediately after the game and cancelled the committee. I believe that had you stayed "calm and collected" during the discussions with the director at the table, you would have remained cognizant of your appointment afterwards, and would have not asked for the committee. After all, this is only a club game. You could have still taken the issues to this forum for discussion. Instead, you let everyone see another one of your temper tantrums, and caused stress that unnecessary. Maybe you should have paid the $50 forfeiture fee for frivolously appealing rulings? -------------------------------------------------- >> The director then, tries to >> reconstruct the facts, as to what really happened at the table. >>Most times this gets interesting:-) >Marvin writes: >Not much of an attempt, this time. ----------------------------------------------------- I disagree, for the reasons listed above. Your behavior clearly bothered this "novice" TD. For the next several days, he asked over ten other directors about this decision. This TD really cares and tries to do a good job. Based on what he told me, I think he made every effort to find out what happened at the table. Had I been the director, I would have considered assessing ZT penalties to you. I am eager to read some of your posts about National events you attend. Thanks, Tom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 11 20:19:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAB9Hwi14292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:17:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAB9HqH14288 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:17:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-43-142.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.43.142] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 162qeO-000HlN-00; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:11:36 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01c16a90$f48e83e0$8e2b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:11:28 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Marvin L. French Cc: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > It seems to me the question is "does an unusual action by a partner > who has given UI, given the caller's understanding, at the time he > made it, of the meaning of his own call, obviate the caller's > obligation not to take an action which might have been suggested by > the UI"? I defer to the experts here - I think not, but I dunno. > > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ Hi Ed (et al), You sound like me talking in the WBFLC. Let's see if we can unravel the thought: 1. East has UI from the explanation. 2. Her duty is not to allow it to 'remind' her of her partnership agreement. 3. She continues bidding on the basis of a 3S response to her Weak Two. 4. I would want to know whether opposite a Weak 2D a response of 2S would be natural and forcing. If so, 3S is something different. 5. If 3S is 'something different' and East has nothing to say what it is, it can hardly 'suggest' anything. In that event East is free to guess what to do. 6. If the above is the case, and East has no past evidence to suggest to her what 3S might be, I would allow her 3NT bid. 7. I am interested in West's pass of 3NT; presumably 3NT is an anti-system bid and he knows from it that something is wrong with the auction. This would be AI, and as it is described he only received UI (from East's trip to the Director) after the auction was closed. 8. The above adds up to 'score stands'. ~ 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 Nov 12 04:13:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fABHCGx28937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 04:12:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fABHCBH28933 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 04:12:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from sam ([63.202.235.40]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMN00JYZBHKC6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:05:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:54:52 -0800 From: jaycue@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_16H] Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106100315.00ac9830@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004001c166ff$8682d7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >>Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the > >>offending side makes...a claim of tricks orally or by facing his > >>hand. > >> > >>It seems to me that the revoke is established, and I apologize for > >>not giving more detail. > > >AG : sorry, but this applies only to revokes made *before* the claim. A >> revoke *becomes* established when ..., which means that it already happened. > >Here, there has been no revoke, and the only question is : would declarer >> discover his last diamond before he leads to the trick after the 4th >> diamond ? We've ruled he would, because it would be irrational play. >> >Sorry, but he clearly would not have discovered his diamond until >about to play the second heart on a diamond. Too late, revoke >established. >I guess you had to be there. The diamond was stuck under the ace of >spades when he faced those cards, and the process of facing them >revealed that. Had there been no claim, the diamond would not have >been seen until too late. >On another plane, I fail to see why a claimer's statement that he >plans to revoke makes a revoke irrational rather than just careless. >Marv >Marvin L. French, >San Diego, California I do believe that the dummy would have the opportunity to say, "No diamonds partner?". And I do have enough experience against this beautiful red-headed lady who's playing dummy, to know that she asks 99.9% of the time! Thanks, Tom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 12 04:53:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fABHquJ28956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 04:52:56 +1100 (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 fABHqoH28952 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 04:52:50 +1100 (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 fABHkZB03966 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:46:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001101c16ad8$b68a9460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c16a90$f48e83e0$8e2b7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:44:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: Ed Reppert > > > > > > It seems to me the question is "does an unusual action by a > partner > > who has given UI, given the caller's understanding, at the time he > > made it, of the meaning of his own call, obviate the caller's > > obligation not to take an action which might have been suggested > by > > the UI"? I defer to the experts here - I think not, but I dunno. > > > +=+ Hi Ed (et al), > You sound like me talking in the WBFLC. Let's see > if we can unravel the thought: > 1. East has UI from the explanation. > 2. Her duty is not to allow it to 'remind' her of > her partnership agreement. > 3. She continues bidding on the basis of a 3S > response to her Weak Two. > 4. I would want to know whether opposite a > Weak 2D a response of 2S would be natural and > forcing. If so, 3S is something different. This partnership did not have an agreement about weak two's, which they weren't playing. Many of their class of player do not play takeouts as forcing (in these parts, anyway), so 3S could be just a forcing spade bid with a great suit. > 5. If 3S is 'something different' and East has > nothing to say what it is, it can hardly 'suggest' > anything. In that event East is free to guess > what to do. Out of curiosity I went around the room after the game, asking weak two bidders what they would do after a 3S response. Answers included 4S, 4D, and pass (!). None bid 3NT, which tells me that it was only the UI that led East to bid 3NT. Danny Kleinman suggests that 3S is a splinter bid in support of diamonds. East therefore, with a super-maximum weak two, bids 6D. West takes this as a void-showing bid (5D would be a splinter) with a 4=4=0=5 hand, and bids 7S. 1100 to N/S. I don't think Danny would suggest this scenario if he realized the two E?W women were not experienced players. > 6. If the above is the case, and East has no > past evidence to suggest to her what 3S might > be, I would allow her 3NT bid. East knows what 3S might be after the Alert explanation :)) Playing with an inexperienced partner, with no discussion of jump takeout responses, I would certainly not think that 3S shows anything but spades, and would not dream of bidding 3NT. Nor would anyone else, absent the UI. > 7. I am interested in West's pass of 3NT; > presumably 3NT is an anti-system bid and he > knows from it that something is wrong with > the auction. This would be AI, and as it is > described he only received UI (from East's trip > to the Director) after the auction was closed. Yes, West passed before East left the table and was blameless. She probably figured that East had forgotten about the requirement to hold four spades, so passing 3NT was the right thing to do, logical and legal. > 8. The above adds up to 'score stands'. Disagree. 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 Nov 12 05:32:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fABITWO28983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:29:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fABITQH28979 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:29:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-88-51.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.88.51] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 162zG8-0009dH-00; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 18:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c16ade$023caf60$c8367bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c16a90$f48e83e0$8e2b7bd5@dodona> <001101c16ad8$b68a9460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 18:22:10 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > Out of curiosity I went around the room after the game, asking weak two > bidders what they would do after a 3S response. Answers included 4S, 4D, and > pass (!). None bid 3NT, which tells me that it was only the UI that led East > to bid 3NT. > +=+ Did you ask East? +=+ > > Danny Kleinman suggests that 3S is a splinter bid in support of diamonds. > East therefore, with a super-maximum weak two, bids 6D. West takes this as a > void-showing bid (5D would be a splinter) with a 4=4=0=5 hand, and bids 7S. > 1100 to N/S. I don't think Danny would suggest this scenario if he realized > the two E?W women were not experienced players. > +=+ Splinter is what I would think of, too; but I am not East and I am not imposing my ideas onto her understanding of bridge. We need to ask East and then judge the credibility of her answer.+=+ > > > 6. If the above is the case, and East has no > > past evidence to suggest to her what 3S might > > be, I would allow her 3NT bid. > > East knows what 3S might be after the Alert explanation :)) > +=+ We are interested in what it would mean, if anything, to this East in an auction with no UI +=+ > > > 8. The above adds up to 'score stands'. > > Disagree. > +=+ This is permitted; and is a useful contribution to the discussion if you were not at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 12 05:52:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fABIqDO01412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:52:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fABIq5H01395 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:52:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-236-245.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.236.245] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fABIjoP22792 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 19:45:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <012c01c16ae1$bfb0b7a0$2def75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 19:35:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > S- Q984 > H- AQ1084 > D- 932 > C- 8 > > S- AKJ63 S- 105 > H- 762 H- 53 > D- 54 D- AKQ875 > C- K32 C- Q94 > > S- 72 > H- KJ9 > D- J10 > C- AJ10765 > > The bidding: > > West North East South > -- P 2D* P > 3S P 3NT All pass > > * Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four > spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. E has UI, and thus may not "remember" that they are playing 2D as a three suiter. Thus E has to assume a 3S response opposite a 2D weak two, showing either spades in a good hand, or possibly a splinter. Bidding 3NT is demonstrably suggested by the UI, and thus E may not bid 3NT. There are three possible rulings: 1.) Adjust to 4S down a few: C lead, C ruffed, HAK cashed (or even underleading the HAQ twice), C ruffed, H, declarer misguesses spades for down three. 2.) Adjust to 4D or 5D down a few. 3.) Assume that 3S has to be interpreted as a splinter, and adjust to a slam contract, doubled. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 12 17:27:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAC6PNs18614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:25:23 +1100 (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 fAC6PHH18610 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:25:17 +1100 (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 fAC6J1B04628 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:19:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004c01c16b41$ca198180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c16a90$f48e83e0$8e2b7bd5@dodona> <001101c16ad8$b68a9460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002301c16ade$023caf60$c8367bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:13:23 -0800 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" > > Out of curiosity I went around the room after the game, asking > > weak two bidders what they would do after a 3S response. Answers > > included 4S, 4D, and pass (!). None bid 3NT, which tells me > > that it was only the UI that led East to bid 3NT. > > > +=+ Did you ask East? +=+ > +=+ Splinter is what I would think of, too; but I am not East and I > am > not imposing my ideas onto her understanding of bridge. We need to > ask East and then judge the credibility of her answer.+=+ Undocumented and unsubstantiated replies to such questions are irrelevant. It's like asking, "What would you have done if your partner had not hesitated?" We don't ask such questions, for very good reasons that we all know. That is why we have TD panels at NABCs going around asking players what they would do with a given hand. Sure, if she could pull out notes showing that 3S asks a weak two diamond opener to bid 3NT with a solid suit, then table result stands. She did not offer any such evidence. All she did was apologize to her partner for forgetting their agreement. The TD talked to her privately, but nothing seems to have come of that. > > > > > 6. If the above is the case, and East has no > > > past evidence to suggest to her what 3S might > > > be, I would allow her 3NT bid. > > > > > 8. The above adds up to 'score stands'. > > > > Disagree. > > > +=+ This is permitted; and is a useful contribution to the > discussion if you were not at the table. Oh, so we have a BLML rule that players who were at the table cannot make a useful contribution to a discussion, although disagreeing with you is permitted. Didn't know the former, glad to know the latter. :)) 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 Nov 12 18:32:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAC7VnL24576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:31:49 +1100 (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 fAC7VeH24569 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:31:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-85-167.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.85.167] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 163BT8-000C8s-00; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:25:23 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c16b4b$49b4f600$a755063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "bridge-laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <012c01c16ae1$bfb0b7a0$2def75c2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:25:34 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 11, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 :-) > > There are three possible rulings: > +=+ Ah! 12C3, of course, ...... +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 12 18:32:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAC7Vok24577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:31:50 +1100 (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 fAC7VeH24568 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:31:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-85-167.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.85.167] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 163BSr-000C8s-00; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:25:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c16b4b$3f439f00$a755063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <012c01c16ae1$bfb0b7a0$2def75c2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:13:44 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 11, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > > There are three possible rulings: > 1.) Adjust to 4S down a few: C lead, > C ruffed, HAK cashed (or even > underleading the HAQ twice), C > ruffed, H, declarer misguesses > spades for down three. 2.) Adjust > to 4D or 5D down a few. 3.) Assume > that 3S has to be interpreted as a > splinter, and adjust to a slam > contract, doubled. > +=+ Without knowing what East said to the Director when she went to consult him? These are your ideas, based on your understanding of the game; very reasonable in themselves, but no kind of decision until you have the full facts. The Director knew what she had told him and he ruled 'score stands'; no-one can say he is wrong until all the information is in the open. We have only a biased and incomplete account of the occurrence up to now. ~ 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 Nov 12 18:45:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAC7iur24600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:44:56 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAC7ioH24596 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-35-31.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.35.31] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 163BeA-0008AV-00; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:36:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c16b4d$206aab80$a755063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><00cb01c16a32$4f9a35e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c16a90$f48e83e0$8e2b7bd5@dodona> <001101c16ad8$b68a9460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002301c16ade$023caf60$c8367bd5@dodona> <004c01c16b41$ca198180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:38:33 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > > +=+ This is permitted; and is a useful > > contribution to the discussion if you > > were not at the table. > > Oh, so we have a BLML rule that players > who were at the table cannot make a > useful contribution to a discussion, although > disagreeing with you is permitted. Didn't > know the former, glad to know the latter. :)) > +=+ No rules. Just the plain fact that the views of a player who is involved are always tainted and to be weighed less in the outcome. This is a universal 'law' and is why no experienced Director or AC member ever bases judgement upon one side's version of the matter alone without qualification. On blml the more useful discussions are those where the reporter is not personally involved. ~ 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 Nov 12 22:15:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACBENQ07773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:14:23 +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 fACBEFH07769 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:14:17 +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 163Eul-0007NP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:06:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 01:40:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal #4 in Paris References: <005101c167bf$5dc9b840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c167e0$b3d99180$7a487bd5@dodona> <001f01c167ec$c815cfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002b01c16878$78c93120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002b01c16878$78c93120$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 >The jump to 3H had to be strong (for a passed hand). I believe East >suspected it was perhaps weak, hence his 3NT bid. Whether it also >showed spade support was unimportant, even if disclosable. If East >argued that an apparent opposing misfit made his 3NT bid more >attractive, so he was damaged by the lack of disclosure about the >spade support, that might be a reasonable argument. As I understand >the case, it was the strength of South's hand, strong or weak, that >mattered, not its composition. Strong is normal, so failure to >communicate that was not an infraction, even if failure to disclose >South's spade support was. North should have passed a note, perhaps: >"Shows spade support too." That's all. In the absence of further >disclosure, South has to have hearts and a good hand. Single jumps >are strong, heart bids are natural, and neither agreement is >"special." > >Whatever, forget that case. I am just trying to establish a >principle: What is normal and general is not "special," as the CoP >says, and per L75C only special partnership information need be >disclosed. I esteem Grattan very highly, but think he is stretching >to say otherwise. > >I often play with a partner whose knowledge of what is "normal" is >rather weak. Once the auction went 1C-1H-3S by her, and my life >master LHO wanted to know the meaning of the unAlerted 3S. It was a >double jump, passed by me, and therefore had to be weak with long >spades. The TD, of the Grattan school, insisted that I explain 3S. >I considered that an illegal instruction and refused to do >so. Why? Because this partner might not have a normal 3S bid, and my >explanation would be UI. Then, after LHO bid 4H, she could not bid >4S with seven to the AKQ, as would be automatic absent the UI. >Besides, a LM ought to know what 3S means. It's not my duty to >teach bridge to ignorant LMs. > >This was the case I sent to Edgar, who replied that I was in the >right. > >Her actual hand was seven spades QJ10 and three xx's outside, just >right when not playing weak jumps. When it came up again several >years later, I possessed partnership experience with the bid, but it >was nothing "special," so again I refused to explain it. The TD was >Max Hardy, who knew my position and its legality. Max found a clever >way to satisfy the irate opponent. He asked if 3S was Alerted. No? >"Then it has to be natural and weak," he said, and walked away. the trouble with this approach to the game is that it is contravention of L75A. You like to hide your knowledge of partner's methods behind a very dubious and abstruse legal point. But you do not make an effort to make your knowledge of the partnership methods fully and freely available. -- 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 Nov 12 22:36:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACBa6f07786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:36:06 +1100 (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 fACBa0H07782 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:36:01 +1100 (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 163FHN-000DxG-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:29:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:28:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I shall be visiting the ACBL Nationals in Las Vegas next week, and I hope to meet as many new friends as possible. It will be fun to swop ideas on the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 12 22:52:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACBqgT07803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:52:42 +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 fACBqZH07799 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:52:36 +1100 (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 fACBk4q13025; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:46:04 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fACBk4o19745; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:46:04 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:46:04 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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, 12 Nov 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > I shall be visiting the ACBL Nationals in Las Vegas next week, and I > hope to meet as many new friends as possible. See you there then, Henk > > It will be fun to swop ideas on the Laws. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Mon Nov 12 23:17:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACCGfX07825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:16:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fACCGNH07821 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:16:23 +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 NAA16086; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:08:32 +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 NAA11102; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:09:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011112130314.02441380@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:10:26 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 In-Reply-To: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:32 10/11/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Vulnerability: none >Dealer: North > > S- Q984 > H- AQ1084 > D- 932 > C- 8 > >S- AKJ63 S- 105 >H- 762 H- 53 >D- 54 D- AKQ875 >C- K32 C- Q94 > > S- 72 > H- KJ9 > D- J10 > C- AJ10765 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > -- P 2D* P > 3S P 3NT All pass > >* Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four >spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. > >Before the opening lead, East leaves table to talk to the TD, who >returns and says play the hand out. AG : why didn't he let East say 'I was wrong' ? >Club is led, +400 for E/W. > >Ruling by retired Associate National Director of the ACBL: Result >stands. > >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. AG : if 3S didn't exist, he would be right. But if that bid has a meaning, any meaning, he has to take it at face value. I like to play this as S+D, and would thus feel compelled to bid 5D. BTW, West didn't seem sure about East's bid, because he's got a fairly obvious 4S bid. The fact that he bid a mere 3S is fishy. >I say 4S down two undoubled, E/W -100. What do you say? AG : it's either this or 5D for the same score. Nobody has an obvious double. Of course, if there is MI, South has a good argument that he would have bid over a weak 2D, and we must go on from there. But you seem to believe the explanation was correct. I would, however ,ask West why he didn't bid 4S. Best 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 Tue Nov 13 00:13:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACDD5H17563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:13:05 +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 fACDCwH17541 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:12:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fACD6cB15555 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:06:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEF9C7C.8BD137EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:55:08 +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] San Diego ruling References: <200111051609.IAA31985@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011106100315.00ac9830@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004001c166ff$8682d7a0$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 jaycue@mindspring.com wrote: > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > > >AG : sorry, but this applies only to revokes made *before* the > claim. A > >> revoke *becomes* established when ..., which means that it already > happened. > > >Here, there has been no revoke, and the only question is : would > declarer > >> discover his last diamond before he leads to the trick after the > 4th > >> diamond ? We've ruled he would, because it would be irrational > play. > >> > > >Sorry, but he clearly would not have discovered his diamond until > >about to play the second heart on a diamond. Too late, revoke > >established. > > >I guess you had to be there. The diamond was stuck under the ace of > >spades when he faced those cards, and the process of facing them > >revealed that. Had there been no claim, the diamond would not have > >been seen until too late. > > >On another plane, I fail to see why a claimer's statement that he > >plans to revoke makes a revoke irrational rather than just careless. > > >Marv > >Marvin L. French, > >San Diego, California > > I do believe that the dummy would have the opportunity to say, "No diamonds partner?". And I do have > enough experience against this beautiful red-headed lady who's playing dummy, to know that she asks > 99.9% of the time! > That would not help. Since declarer did not see his diamond (stuck under some other card), he would simply have answered "no". Anyway, we would be ruling a claim, with benefit of the doubt going against claimer. And such of course under a different interpretation that the WBFLC one, which I believe should not apply. -- 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 Nov 13 00:13:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACDDBk17579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:13:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fACDD3H17561 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:13:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fACD6jB15640 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:06:45 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:06:24 +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: [BLML] honest player Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What to do in the following case : EW play and make 3NT. N marks the table scorecard 3NT ( ) = 400 in the NS column. the column "by" is not marked. The score +400 is entered in the computer for NS. 3NT is an uncommon contract on the board, so the computer operator (me) does not remark anything strange. All scores are between +400 and -400. It should be said that NS are vulnerable, so the operator could have seen it, while the program did not, since +400 is possible (-8). [Anyway, I'm not accepting the blame. :-)] All participants receive a personal score sheet. EW do not remark anything wrong on theirs. NS do - but too late (the following morning in fact). NS have received a top for a bottom, an extra 3% in total, an unmerited 14th place, and 4000 BEF. With a score of -400 on the deal they would have been 23rd, in line for some prize in kind. EW would not gain anything with their extra 3% (well, a lot of places, but nothing worthwhile). There is no indication whatsoever of bad intent on the part of N, a player beyond any suspicion. The player himself brings the facts to the attention of the organizers. What would you do ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 01:17:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACEH7B23834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:17:07 +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 fACEH0H23830 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:17:02 +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 OAA23518 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:10:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:09:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] honest player References: <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >What to do in the following case : > >EW play and make 3NT. > >N marks the table scorecard 3NT ( ) = 400 in the NS column. >the column "by" is not marked. > >The score +400 is entered in the computer for NS. > >3NT is an uncommon contract on the board, so the computer >operator (me) does not remark anything strange. All scores >are between +400 and -400. >It should be said that NS are vulnerable, so the operator >could have seen it, while the program did not, since +400 is >possible (-8). >[Anyway, I'm not accepting the blame. :-)] > >All participants receive a personal score sheet. EW do not >remark anything wrong on theirs. >NS do - but too late (the following morning in fact). > >NS have received a top for a bottom, an extra 3% in total, >an unmerited 14th place, and 4000 BEF. With a score of -400 >on the deal they would have been 23rd, in line for some >prize in kind. >EW would not gain anything with their extra 3% (well, a lot >of places, but nothing worthwhile). > >There is no indication whatsoever of bad intent on the part >of N, a player beyond any suspicion. >The player himself brings the facts to the attention of the >organizers. > >What would you do ? Nothing, but thank him for his integrity. You're outside the score correction period I presume? 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 Nov 13 01:21:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACELAD23847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:21:10 +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 fACEL4H23843 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:21:05 +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 ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:14:40 +0100 Message-ID: <021f01c16b84$6a3fb660$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] honest player Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:15:00 +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: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: [BLML] honest player > What to do in the following case : > > EW play and make 3NT. > > N marks the table scorecard 3NT ( ) = 400 in the NS column. > the column "by" is not marked. > > The score +400 is entered in the computer for NS. > > 3NT is an uncommon contract on the board, so the computer > operator (me) does not remark anything strange. All scores > are between +400 and -400. > It should be said that NS are vulnerable, so the operator > could have seen it, while the program did not, since +400 is > possible (-8). > [Anyway, I'm not accepting the blame. :-)] > > All participants receive a personal score sheet. EW do not > remark anything wrong on theirs. > NS do - but too late (the following morning in fact). > > NS have received a top for a bottom, an extra 3% in total, > an unmerited 14th place, and 4000 BEF. With a score of -400 > on the deal they would have been 23rd, in line for some > prize in kind. > EW would not gain anything with their extra 3% (well, a lot > of places, but nothing worthwhile). > > There is no indication whatsoever of bad intent on the part > of N, a player beyond any suspicion. > The player himself brings the facts to the attention of the > organizers. > > What would you do ? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Hi Herman, A practice that I like is where the prizes are fixed at the day of the tournament, while the honour awards (ranking, masterpoints, rights for qualification, and so on) can be changed later on. In Sweden, we have the policy that the ranking after the AC decisions is binding for the awarding of prices. However, one can appeal to the Swedish Laws Commission. Their verdict may change the ranking and masterpoints as well as the title. It doesn't have any effect on the money prizes. Therefore, in theory, it is possible that one contestant is Swedish champion while another got the prize money. (In practice, the LC is present at the national championships and will act as AC directly, so that problem never occurs). So, in your case, I would decide to leave the prizes as they are but publish the updated results and award masterpoints, etc. accordingly. Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 02:43:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACFeG923898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:40:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mplspop5.mpls.uswest.net (mplspop5.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fACFeAH23894 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:40:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 54517 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 15:33:51 -0000 Received: from 63-226-140-87.customers.uswest.net (HELO oemcomputer) (63.226.140.87) by mplspop5.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 12 Nov 2001 15:33:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:33:44 -0600 Message-ID: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 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 BMML, Last night at the club the following hand occurred: Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent KJTxxx xx x xxxx xxx A AKJxx Qxxx AKxx Qx x AKxxxx Qx xx JTxxxx QTx Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and that was alerted and described as Mexican (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). East passed and South bid 4 spades ending the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 and I was summoned to the table. It seemed to me that South had UI and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. I actually awarded 6H making 7 to E/W thinking that 4 spades doubled for 800 was another possibility. It was a topic of discussion after the event and no one at the club agreed with my ruling, including a National Director (except for E/W of course :)) Gratefully, no adjustment that I could have made would have altered the final standings which were E/W 1st and N/S 2nd. I was thinking that E/W were due the best result that was likely but no one else thought that their getting to 6H was that likely. I would appreciate hearing what you all think. Thanks and Regards, Chip -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 03:19:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACGJVg23954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 03:19:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACGJPH23950 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 03:19:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d121.iae.nl [212.61.3.121]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 5631820FB0 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:13:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:46:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dealer West E/W vulnerable West North East South 1S 2H 3S pass 4H pass pass pass When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) However the TD allowed him to change. 4 S 5H double pass pass pass Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after play ends. What will be the decision of the TD? Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 04:19:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACHGGM24382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:16:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACHGAH24378 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:16:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-33qtnh3.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.222.35]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13784 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:09:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:11:40 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chip wrote: > > Hi BMML, > > Last night at the club the following hand occurred: > > Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale > E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent > > KJTxxx > xx > x > xxxx > > xxx A > AKJxx Qxxx > AKxx Qx > x AKxxxx > > Qx > xx > JTxxxx > QTx > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and that was alerted and described as Mexican > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 > Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). > East passed and South bid 4 spades ending the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 > and I was summoned to the table. > > It seemed to me that South had UI and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West > would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. It's very clear South can't bid 4S. South must alert 4H, and pass. This leaves us to West. Poor West! I think I'd eat my hand at this point and pass, and I can't see untangling E-W into a large heart contract, much as I'd like to. I think the most lively possibility is playing 4H N-S, undoubled, off 10. The other possibility is 4S doubled off four. I think I find the possibility of 4Sx-4 sufficiently likely to enforce it. I would then give a PP to N-S, whatever the ruling, of 3 IMPs, not accruing to E-W. This was flagrant misuse of UI. --JRM I > actually awarded 6H making 7 to E/W thinking that 4 spades doubled for 800 > was another possibility. It was a topic of discussion after the event and > no one at the club agreed with my ruling, including a National Director > (except for E/W of course :)) > > Gratefully, no adjustment that I could have made would have altered the > final standings which were E/W 1st and N/S 2nd. > > I was thinking that E/W were due the best result that was likely but no one > else thought that their getting to 6H was that likely. I would appreciate > hearing what you all think. > > Thanks and Regards, > Chip > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 13 05:00:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACHxh124403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:59:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACHxbH24399 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:59:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-239-243.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.239.243] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fACHrLP18936 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:53:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007001c16ba3$9528b9c0$f3ef75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <012c01c16ae1$bfb0b7a0$2def75c2@rabbit> <000a01c16b4b$3f439f00$a755063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:55:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > > > > > > There are three possible rulings: > > 1.) Adjust to 4S down a few: C lead, > > C ruffed, HAK cashed (or even > > underleading the HAQ twice), C > > ruffed, H, declarer misguesses > > spades for down three. 2.) Adjust > > to 4D or 5D down a few. 3.) Assume > > that 3S has to be interpreted as a > > splinter, and adjust to a slam > > contract, doubled. > > > +=+ Without knowing what East said to > the Director when she went to consult > him? Yes. I feel sure that *nothing* East states could convince me that 3NT, with no H stopper but with support for partner's spades, is the only logical alternative for E. The UI makes it clear that bidding 4S will likely be a 4-2 disaster. Furthermore, according to the write-up E did not alert 3S. I would be leaning towards fining E an additional PP for flagrant, intentional use of UI by selecting an absurd 3NT bid solely because of the available UI. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 05:43:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACIh0C25230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:43:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACIgrH25225 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:42:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-239-180.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.239.180] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fACIaXP26045 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:36:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007c01c16ba9$a0eb3a20$f3ef75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:41:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Chip" wrote: > Hi BMML, > > Last night at the club the following hand occurred: > > Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale > E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent > > KJTxxx > xx > x > xxxx > > xxx A > AKJxx Qxxx > AKxx Qx > x AKxxxx > > Qx > xx > JTxxxx > QTx > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and > that was alerted and described as Mexican > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 > Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). > East passed and South bid 4 spades ending > the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 > and I was summoned to the table. > > It seemed to me that South had UI and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West > would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. Assuming that 2D was intended as an *ouch* weak two in diamonds, 4H probably would be natural. Thus, in light of the UI, S has to pass 4H. It is hard to say how the bidding would continue after 2D p 4H p p. Your actual 6H making 7 ruling is quite reasonable. Players have to accept that if they misbid, they are not allowed to "remember" their systemic agreements after partner's alert and explanation. Next, another main issue circles around N/S's actual agreements. If there was MI, and N/S indeed play 2D as a weak two, then W would have acted over 2D, and the only question will be to which H slam we adjust (resp. a weighted score if L12C is in effect). Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 06:22:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACJMMI25770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:22:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACJMGH25766 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:22:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05635 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:16:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111121916.OAA05635@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:16:16 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 10 November 2001 at 10:32, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Vulnerability: none >Dealer: North > > S- Q984 > H- AQ1084 > D- 932 > C- 8 > >S- AKJ63 S- 105 >H- 762 H- 53 >D- 54 D- AKQ875 >C- K32 C- Q94 > > S- 72 > H- KJ9 > D- J10 > C- AJ10765 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > -- P 2D* P > 3S P 3NT All pass > >* Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four >spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. > >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. > >I say 4S down two undoubled, E/W -100. What do you say? Later on in the thread, you discuss brining the hand to others and having them bid it. You didn't, however, ask Ron Andersen (Yes, I know. Ok, Sabine Auken, then). _Preempts from A to Z_ says the same thing that I would say were it my partnership - 3NT is the systemic bid, denying first or second round control in spades. At least, that's what it would have been over 2H-p-3S (assuming that was a weak 2 :-). Of course, you really would have been confused when I Alerted 3S and explained it as control-asking... I really do believe it would depend on their agreements after skips over weak 2s. If they have no weak 2s...Director's best guess? I know, unsubstantiated explanations; but I prefer to believe DWS than what I see at tournaments - that most players, when asked, tell the truth. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 07:24:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACKNPX25812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:23:25 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACKNKH25808 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:23:20 +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 fACKGjh27191; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:16:45 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:08:05 -0500 To: "Ben Schelen" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again Cc: "bridge-laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:46 PM +0100 11/12/01, Ben Schelen wrote: >In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after >play ends. > >What will be the decision of the TD? Around here (ACBL, District 4) I'd bet on "director error, average plus, both sides". I doubt that's the correct ruling, though. :-) 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/AwUBO/AuPb2UW3au93vOEQKAywCfc9Vza/UL0Tp0ZFdltOxb3zmZF6YAoLFv 5YQkIv6+4o7DNrZDoiu/NgBC =n2Jc -----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 Nov 13 08:06:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACL5w425835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:05:58 +1100 (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 fACL5rH25831 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:05:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:59:32 -0800 Received: from 172.168.164.40 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:59:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.168.164.40] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Consulting players (Was: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:59:31 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2001 20:59:32.0121 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED3B8890:01C16BBC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In this whole mess I realize there's a topic touched upon, but not really discussed. Maybe it's second nature to everyone else, but I'll just air my confusion in hopes that someone will address it. It was said that the TD consulted other players before making his ruling. The first half of my confusion is about what was asked. Are you asking to find out more than what the set of LAs are? The second half deals more specifically with this case. In the event that UI informs a player of a misbid, is the set of LAs dependant on the bidding system on the convention cards or the bidding system thought to be used when the misbid occurred? I've been assuming the latter. What information do you give to the players you are consulting? If you inform them of the misbid and associated UI, mightn't the players you are consulting answer the wrong question -- the ethics question, not the use of UI/set of LAs question? So, more specific to this case, what questions would you ask the players you consult and what do you do with the answers? -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 Nov 13 08:08:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACL7wC25847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:07:58 +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 fACL7qH25843 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:07:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fACL1YN04565 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:01:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 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: <007001c16ba3$9528b9c0$f3ef75c2@rabbit> > > "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > From: Thomas Dehn > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:35 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > > > > > > > > > > There are three possible rulings: > > > 1.) Adjust to 4S down a few: C lead, > > > C ruffed, HAK cashed (or even > > > underleading the HAQ twice), C > > > ruffed, H, declarer misguesses > > > spades for down three. 2.) Adjust > > > to 4D or 5D down a few. 3.) Assume > > > that 3S has to be interpreted as a > > > splinter, and adjust to a slam > > > contract, doubled. > > > > > +=+ Without knowing what East said to > > the Director when she went to consult > > him? > > Yes. I feel sure that *nothing* East states could > convince me that 3NT, with no H stopper > but with support for partner's spades, is the > only logical alternative for E. The UI makes it clear that > bidding 4S will likely be a 4-2 disaster. > Furthermore, according to the write-up E did not alert 3S. Then let us assume it is natural, strong with spades (as I would assume absent any discussion). What does East bid? 4S - no way, you are supermax with Hx support, can't be an LA 4H - no control 4D - suggests a weak hand, no fit (also is strongly suggested by UI) 4C - no control 3N - must show a solid diamond suit (what else would it be?) Pass - Bail out now, could well work and thus is suggested by UI I confess though that if someone has a hand closer to an Acol two than a weak two and opens what they think is a weak 2D then I have no idea what they might consider logical. NB I play 2H/2S responses to a weak 2D as constructive and non-forcing so 3S is the only way to set the suit unambiguously if partner has a good spade hand, don't know if this is unusual. BTW if you do play 3S as a splinter then surely it is better to use 3N to show slam interest but no controls (this hand) rather than "partner despite your singleton spade I still want to play in 3N" - how often would you need that! 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 Nov 13 10:40:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACNe6Z25916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:40:06 +1100 (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 fACNe0H25912 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:40:01 +1100 (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 SAA26148 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:33:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA02971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:33:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:33:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111122333.SAA02971@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >West North East South > > -- P 2D* P > > 3S P 3NT All pass > > > >* Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four > >spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. [I'll assume the explanation was correct and that East has misbid.] > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : if 3S didn't exist, he would be right. But if that bid has a meaning, > any meaning, he has to take it at face value. The problem -- as has been noted on BLML before -- is that after a misbid, EW are "out of the book" in their bidding system. 3S has a meaning in the actual bidding system EW are playing, but if we force East to bid according to a different system where 2D is natural and weak, no further bids have any meaning in this partnership. *At best* we can force EW to bid according to systems commonly played in the locality, but the hard truth is that we are inventing a fantasy bidding system for EW. I don't have a better solution, but the present one is less than satisfactory. I expect the table director was using the "screen test," even though that doesn't reflect the real laws. The 3S bid in response to a weak 2D is so unusual that an East who has misbid will almost certainly recognize his mistake even behind screens. (This would not be the case for a 3D or 3NT response, for example, or even 2S and maybe not 4S, but 3S is an awfully rare response.) As I say, this is not the correct way to rule, but some directors believe it is. > I would, however ,ask West why he didn't bid 4S. Why? According to the story, West had no UI, so he can bid anything he wants. Is it that you are suspicious that the "misbid" might have occurred before? If so, there might very well be MI, but it's hard to see how MI did any damage. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 10:42:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fACNftI25932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:41:55 +1100 (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 fACNfnH25928 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:41:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-50-8.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.50.8] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 163Qbw-000GGa-00; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: <003f01c16bd2$d037b320$0664063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:35:31 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > I confess though that if someone has a hand closer > to an Acol two than a weak two and opens what > they think is a weak 2D then I have no idea what > they might consider logical. > +=+ Precisely. The only player who could have any idea is East and if the Director ever learnt anything on the point it will have been when she went off to tell him what had happened and ask what she should do. There is nothing that can be called universal about this kind of situation. If 2S is natural and forcing, 3S could just as well with some players be asking or showing stop in a hand that wants to go to 3NT; splinters etc are OK for some, but maybe not this East, and asking lots of other people about it is only useful if you can put them in her shoes with her methods and obtain their judgements on that basis; you do not ask expert players about facts, such as "what does this bid mean?". The Director ascertains facts from the players. And what expert players think a bid ought to mean is irrelevant; the question is what it means for the player in question with her understandings. Nothing has been said yet that makes the Director's ruling wrong. ~ 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 Nov 13 12:09:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAD18cH25972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:08:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAD18UH25964 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:08:31 +1100 (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 163Rxl-000Fkj-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:02:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:59:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$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 >Things are a little slow on BLML, so I'll throw in an easy one. > >Sectional championship in San Diego 20 Nov 2001 >Friday afternoon 2:30 pm Stratified Pairs >(All pair events are one-session stratified, straight Mitchell >movement with overall awards) >Board 17 >Vulnerability: none >Dealer: North > > S- Q984 > H- AQ1084 > D- 932 > C- 8 > >S- AKJ63 S- 105 >H- 762 H- 53 >D- 54 D- AKQ875 >C- K32 C- Q94 > > S- 72 > H- KJ9 > D- J10 > C- AJ10765 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > -- P 2D* P > 3S P 3NT All pass > >* Alerted and explained as 11-15 HCP, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4, with four >spades guaranteed. East kept a straight face. > >Before the opening lead, East leaves table to talk to the TD, who >returns and says play the hand out. > >Club is led, +400 for E/W. > >Ruling by retired Associate National Director of the ACBL: Result >stands. > >Justification: 3S is so unusual a response to a weak two that it >would have reminded East of her 2D agreement. I have never believed this rubbish. When my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have no agreement, I assume he has reasonable length in the suit. There are various possible meanings for 3S over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. Of course, they may have generalised agreements that cover this sequence, but that is different. For example, if this pair plays 2S over 2D as forcing, and plays that in any position where a bid is forcing, one step up is a splinter, then you might say they have effectively got an understanding that 3S over 2D is a splinter. Unusual bids generally mean partner has made a natural bid, not that you can now use UI with impunity. Now, given the actual sequence, the UI suggests bidding 3NT, because that looks most likely to be successful knowing what partner is thinking about your hand. So, are the LAs? Certainly: if East thinks this sort of auction shows a splinter then 5D, and probably 6D are LAs. If they really have no agreement at all then 4S stands out a mile. So I ask a few questions, and probably rule 4S-2 or 6D-2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 12:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAD18a625971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:08:36 +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-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 fAD18SH25962 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:08:29 +1100 (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 163Rxj-000Fki-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:02:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:42:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland 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 Victor Badran writes >Last weekend we, as an appeals committee had to decide on following question. >And I think we did it wrong. > >Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. > >25. N/EW > > A8 > Qxxxxx > Q10xx > AJ > Qx xxxx > Kxx J10x > xxx AKJxx > KQxxxx x > KJ109xx > Ax > x > 1098x I shall try to make sensible comments, but it is complicated by the extra heart, presumably North, and the extra spade. I expect if this had been West the poster would have realised there was singleton queen, so it is a little difficult to guess how to correct this. >At one table they made 4S = 420. > > N E S W > 1H p 2D* > >*TD >There was a lot of talking at the table. >S intendet to open 2D multi. >TD knew about Law 25 but found the board unplayable so he gave -3 IMP to NS. >He also told the 2 teams to play an extra board, just in case. First, let us just check we know what the correct ruling would have been. Since South intended to open the Multi, the 2D was not an inadvertent call, so L25A does not apply. However, South could have changed his call under L25B since the next player has not called. There is a lot of fuss in L25B, but the general effect is that if South had done this then usually N/S are playing for -3 imps maximum, E/W are playing for whatever happens. Also the TD should warn about UI, since my impression is that South said something like "O, sh*t, I meant to open the Multi!" As for playing an extra board, that does not appear in my Law book. So, with a correct ruling, N/S might have bid and made 4S, just possibly gone off in it, or reached a probably making part-score. The reason this did not occur is because of the wrong ruling by the TD. Another possibility, often forgotten on BLML, is that once the TD reads L25B out, the player may have no further interest and might decide to stick with the 2D bid. If the player has attempted to change the 2D bid then I do not believe he can do this, though the Law is ambiguous, but if he has not and is merely asking what the Law would be he can certainly decide not to proceed. The final contract then could easily be 6S doubled [cold on a heart lead!], something stupid, or a low spade contract when North does not follow his L73C obligations, and this will be adjusted. At a guess, N/S would have got -3 imps about 20% of the time, and various worse scores the rest of the time. >NS appealed Since there was zero chance on the board of them doing better than this, this was a serious error. E/W should have appealed, true. >We decided to cancel the extra board. Good. >We also decided to give NS -5 because you don't bid 4S all the time. Under what Law? An AC cannot just give a score it sees as equitable without a Law. >But I was not happy with our decicion and think we should have >canceled the board. The TD made a wrong decicion, he should have used >25. >Now that he didn't we should have applied 82C and cancel board 25 maybe. I do not quite understand this: Board 25 was never played out, so it was cancelled whatever you did. The question is not whether it was cancelled, but what score should be given. The Law that applies here is L82C. You have TD error, you apply L82C. It is normal for L82C rulings to be assigned scores under L12C2 or L12C3. It is also normal for them to be split, because the wording of L82C [treating both sides as non-offending] means that you will often give non-balancing scores that add up to more than zero, or 50%. [Incidentally, I have heard of a European NCBO that has ruled that L82C rulings must not total more than zero, or 50%: unfortunately this regulation is illegal, since the wording of L82C is clear. The NCBO has fallen into the trap of worrying about "protecting the field" and has failed to make sure that fairness to the players at the table itself is paramount]. However, L82C does not refer to assigned scores [nor artificial scores, a very common misconception by TDs] so whether you give an AssAS or an ArtAS under L82C depends on the wording of L12C. In this case, no result was obtained, therefore L12C1 applies. So the correct result on the board was to give each side Ave+, ie +3 imps. I know this seems unfair since without the TD error N/S could not have beaten -3 imps [not quite true: if they had decided not to go the L25B route, and then the oppos had done something very stupid, for example letting 6Sx make]. However, first it is the Law, second there was the very slight possibility they could have beaten -3 imps. As a practical matter, I doubt many people would have argued with A- to N/S, A+ to E/W. Your actual -5 imps is not right, however, since you have now penalised N/S for the TD error. >PS. It is normal that there is no director during these league >competitions in Switzerland. It shouldn't be like this, but it is. It is perfectly normal in England and Wales, and I remember giving a ruling in a Polish league that started with chaos at the table because there was no TD, and they eventually wrote to the Australian Director's Bulletin for a decision. Two things should be pointed out by the leagues that run events this way. First, that if they play elsewhere than in a club, the captains should always carry a Law book. Then the two captains can always get together to try to sort rulings out. Second, leagues should provide telephone numbers of TDs. Such numbers are always available in England, being provided with the conditions of contest, and also in the EBU diary, and shortly should appear on the EBU website. Herman mentioned that he would be happy to fly to Switzerland. I am sure the Swiss cannot afford him, and no doubt he was joking. But my offer is, I suggest, slightly more practical: if you need a ruling, and you have no TD present, why not phone me? Home: +44 151 677 7412 Mobile/cell phone: +44 7778 409955 [But not during the next month!] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 12:22:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAD1M6025995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:22:06 +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-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 fAD1M1H25991 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:22:01 +1100 (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 163SAv-000MWE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:14:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > > I shall be visiting the ACBL Nationals in Las Vegas next week, and I >hope to meet as many new friends as possible. > > It will be fun to swop ideas on the Laws. > I shall also be in Los Angeles for a week after that: while in the USA if you want to write to me try bluejak666@hotmail.com. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 21:33:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADATl029547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 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 relay2.softcomca.com ([168.144.1.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fADATgH29543 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:29:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from m2w039 ([168.144.108.39]) by relay2.softcomca.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:23:25 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 212.252.6.203 X-URL: http://www.mail2web.com/ Subject: [BLML] case from Istanbul From: "fahir@akademibric.org" Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:23:56 -0500 To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Reply-To: fahir@akademibric.org X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: JMail 3.7.0 by Dimac (www.dimac.net) Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2001 10:23:25.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A5C2510:01C16C2D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fADATiH29544 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLML, In Istanbul Ladies Team Leaque there was a deal which was so discussed and also appealed, but discussion is not finished yet. Board no:16 dealer W. E/W VUL. N Q1085 5 J96 K9875 W E 763 K4 KQ842 AJ1073 10 AQ82 AQJ3 106 S AJ92 96 K7543 42 In screen table bidding: W N E S p p 1H p 2C* p 2D** Dbl*** Rdbl**** p p 2S 4H 4S dbl p 5H All pass * = 2C alerted only "DRURY" . ** = 2D alerted min 3 cards on D and good opening hand. *** = Dbl alerted as Diamonds ****= Rdbl alerted by West to North as control and good H holding and wants to play min 4H. but by East to South as Diamonds and want to play 2D rdbl. Then South ask what about DRURY and East says that they play drury but not always fit. South calls Director and say if they play real drury then she want to say pass but if they play like explanation she will bid. Director says her to continue according to explanation and she bids 2S... After Ace of spade lead by south 5H just made -650/NS. And director called again. In EW's CC after 3 pos. 1M opening only drury no more explanation. What is your director ruling and what is your appeal comments. In reality director(not me!) ruling was score stands and appeal decision was %50 2D** -2 +1000/NS & %50 4H +1 -650/NS. Thank you for your further comments. Best Regards. M. Fahir Üzümcü. Chief National TD of Turkish Bridge Federation and member of Istanbul Appeal Commity. fahir@akademibric.org www.akademibric.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.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 Nov 13 22:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADB41d29607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:04:01 +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 fADB3qH29603 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:03:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fADAvVj27073 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:57:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland 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: > >Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. > > > >25. N/EW > > > > A8 > > Qxxxxx > > Q10xx > > AJ > > Qx xxxx > > Kxx J10x > > xxx AKJxx > > KQxxxx x > > KJ109xx > > Ax > > x > > 1098x > > Another possibility, often forgotten on BLML, is that once the TD > reads L25B out, the player may have no further interest and might decide > to stick with the 2D bid. If the player has attempted to change the 2D > bid then I do not believe he can do this, though the Law is ambiguous, > but if he has not and is merely asking what the Law would be he can > certainly decide not to proceed. My feeling is that the player can always choose to stick with his original bid - although obviously there can be a lot of UI. > The final contract then could easily > be 6S doubled [cold on a heart lead!], something stupid, or a low spade > contract when North does not follow his L73C obligations, and this will > be adjusted. If South does stick with 2D then 3NT seems the obvious next bid over partner's 3D response (assuming it is AI to South that North is under severe UI restrictions). If North is 2542 then surely a pass of 3N is the only LA. Depending on the curse of Scotland this contract could well make - perhaps doubled. Absent a double I suspect West will lead a small club despite the AI from the auction/director call. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 22:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADBplC07692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:51:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADBpfH07688 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:51:42 +1100 (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 163bxL-0000sb-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:42:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:32:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 References: <003f01c16bd2$d037b320$0664063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003f01c16bd2$d037b320$0664063e@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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"A solitary fantasy can totally transform >a million realities." - Maya Angelou. >+ + + + + + + + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tim West-meads >To: >Cc: >Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:01 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > >> >> I confess though that if someone has a hand closer >> to an Acol two than a weak two and opens what >> they think is a weak 2D then I have no idea what >> they might consider logical. >> >+=+ Precisely. The only player who could have any idea >is East and if the Director ever learnt anything on the >point it will have been when she went off to tell him >what had happened and ask what she should do. > There is nothing that can be called universal >about this kind of situation. If 2S is natural and >forcing, 3S could just as well with some players be >asking or showing stop in a hand that wants to go >to 3NT; splinters etc are OK for some, but maybe >not this East, and asking lots of other people >about it is only useful if you can put them in her >shoes with her methods and obtain their >judgements on that basis; you do not ask expert >players about facts, such as "what does this bid >mean?". The Director ascertains facts from the >players. And what expert players think a bid >ought to mean is irrelevant; the question is >what it means for the player in question with >her understandings. > Nothing has been said yet that makes the >Director's ruling wrong. If you are going to put it that way Grattan, you are technically correct, but you have also seen even less to suggest the ruling was right! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 23:23:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADCNR707715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:23:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADCNLH07711 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:23:21 +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 NAA11387; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:13:50 +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 NAA00179; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:16:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011113131514.0244cb40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:17:38 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 21:01 12/11/2001 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >I confess though that if someone has a hand closer to an Acol two than a >weak two and opens what they think is a weak 2D then I have no idea what >they might consider logical. AG : If I opened a weak 2D with this hand, I would anwer 4S (some fit but no outside control) over 3S. However, East could well have thought he was opening an intermediate 2-bid in D, which is quite frequent among big-clubbers. In this case, 4S is the obvious bid. >NB I play 2H/2S responses to a weak 2D as constructive and non-forcing so >3S is the only way to set the suit unambiguously if partner has a good >spade hand, don't know if this is unusual. AG : and this is also used over intermediate 2C/D openers. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 13 23:23:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADCNl607727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:23:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADCNcH07717 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:23:39 +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 ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:17:13 +0100 Message-ID: <009101c16c3d$2d9aa940$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <008501c16c39$84a31320$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <008b01c16c3c$d620dcc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:17:35 +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: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 AM > Subject: [BLML] case from Istanbul > > > Hi BLML, > > In Istanbul Ladies Team Leaque there was a deal which was so discussed > and also appealed, but discussion is not finished yet. > > Board no:16 dealer W. E/W VUL. > N > Q1085 > 5 > J96 > K9875 > W E > 763 K4 > KQ842 AJ1073 > 10 AQ82 > AQJ3 106 > > S > AJ92 > 96 > K7543 > 42 > In screen table bidding: > W N E S > p p 1H p > 2C* p 2D** Dbl*** > Rdbl**** p p 2S > 4H 4S dbl p > 5H All pass > > * = 2C alerted only "DRURY" . > ** = 2D alerted min 3 cards on D and good opening hand. > *** = Dbl alerted as Diamonds > ****= Rdbl alerted by West to North as control and good H holding and > wants to play min 4H. > but by East to South as Diamonds and want to play 2D rdbl. > Then South ask what about DRURY and East says that they play drury but > not always fit. South calls Director and say if they play real drury > then she want to say pass but if they play like explanation she will > bid. Director says her to continue according to explanation and she > bids 2S... > After Ace of spade lead by south 5H just made -650/NS. And director > called again. > In EW's CC after 3 pos. 1M opening only drury no more explanation. > What is your director ruling and what is your appeal comments. > In reality director(not me!) ruling was score stands and appeal > decision was %50 2D** -2 +1000/NS & %50 4H +1 -650/NS. > Thank you for your further comments. > Best Regards. > M. Fahir Üzümcü. > Chief National TD of Turkish Bridge Federation > and member of Istanbul Appeal Commity. > fahir@akademibric.org > www.akademibric.org > Hi Fahir! In my opinion the interesting point is after the auction had gone: W N E S p p 1H p 2C* p 2D** Dbl*** Rdbl**** p p Whether the Drury shows a fit or not is not that relevant. What _is_ relevant is whether the Rdbl showed a diamond control or a desire to play 2DXX. Now there are two possibilities: A. EW can show that the Rdbl was to play 2D XX EW can somehow show system notes that make it reasonable to assume that the Rdbl was to play. (Reasonable is enough for me in this case, since I doubt many players actually will have a specific agreement about this sequence.) In that case South has been given the correct information on the deal and the table result stands. B. EW cannot show that the Rdbl was to play 2D XX There is no indication that the explanation from East to South was correct. South has been misinformed. Given the knowledge that the Rdbl was not to play, I find it very possible that South would pass 2D XX. In that case, the adjusted score should be based on a contract of 2D XX. I don't see any reason to give another result than 2D XX -2. Of course, once the appeals committee takes a look at the case, they can decide how often South would pass and how often South would bid 2S. If they decide that South would bid 50 % of the time and pass 50 % of the time, the given appeals committee decision would be reached. It seems like a good decision to me. Greetings, 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 Nov 14 00:51:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADDpPE07763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:51:25 +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 fADDpJH07759 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:51:20 +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 ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:44:53 +0100 Message-ID: <00a501c16c49$6d19bbe0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <000001c16c43$8f823b90$1656a8c0@pournaras> Subject: Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C16C51.CEC43340" 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_00A2_01C16C51.CEC43340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Takis Pournaras=20 To: 'Rik Terveen'=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] case from Istanbul -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au = [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Rik Terveen Sent: =D4=F1=DF=F4=E7, 13 =CD=EF=E5=EC=E2=F1=DF=EF=F5 2001 2:18 =EC=EC To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul B. EW cannot show that the Rdbl was to play 2D XX There is no indication that the explanation from East to South was = correct. South has been misinformed. Given the knowledge that the Rdbl = was not to play, I find it very possible that South would pass 2D XX. But if South has the correct explaination that means it was given from = East, which in turn means that it's East now the one who wouldn't pass = 2D** ! Takis Pournaras I understand what you are saying, but it is a wrong way to reason. In = fact, many people make this mistake. Of course, East would not have = passed 2D XX if she would have known the meaning. But, as it happened = she _did_ pass since she didn't know. At this point, South is entitled = to the correct information about the Rdbl. The only question that one should ask in a case like this is what = would South have done if she would have had the correct information. = Imagine that she has a CC in front of her that clearly states that the = Rdbl is conventional. (Remember that East is not allowed to look at that = convention card!) What will happen is that East will pass 2D XX because = she didn't understand the Rdbl and South will pass it because she does = (after she has received the correct information). In short, the question is not what would have happened if East would = have understood the Rdbl. The question is what would happen given that = East did not understand it (as was the case), while South did understand = it. Greetings, Rik ------=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C16C51.CEC43340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Takis = Pournaras=20
To: 'Rik Terveen'
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, = 2001 2:03=20 PM
Subject: RE: [BLML] case from=20 Istanbul

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.an= u.edu.au=20 [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On = Behalf Of=20 Rik Terveen
Sent: =D4=F1=DF=F4=E7, 13 =CD=EF=E5=EC=E2=F1=DF=EF=F5 = 2001 2:18 =EC=EC
To: BLML
Subject:=20 Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul


B. EW cannot show that the = Rdbl was=20 to play 2D XX

There is no indication that the explanation from = East to=20 South was correct. South has been misinformed. Given the knowledge = that the=20 Rdbl was not to play, I find it very possible that South would pass 2D = XX.

But if South has the correct = explaination=20 that means it was given from East, which in turn means that it's East = now the=20 one who wouldn't pass 2D** !

Takis Pournaras

I understand what you are saying, but it is a wrong way to reason. = In fact,=20 many people make this mistake. Of course, East would not have passed = 2D XX if=20 she would have known the meaning. But, as it happened she _did_ pass = since she=20 didn't know. At this point, South is entitled to the correct = information about=20 the Rdbl.

The only question that one should ask in a case like this is what = would=20 South have done if she would have had the correct information. Imagine = that=20 she has a CC in front of her that clearly states that the Rdbl is=20 conventional. (Remember that East is not allowed to look at = that=20 convention card!) What will happen is that East will pass 2D XX = because she=20 didn't understand the Rdbl and South will pass it because she does = (after she=20 has received the correct information).

In short, the question is not what would have happened if East = would have=20 understood the Rdbl. The question is what would happen given that East = did not=20 understand it (as was the case), while South did understand = it.

Greetings,

Rik

------=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C16C51.CEC43340-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 02:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADF2is11010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:02:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADF2bH10994 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:02:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.28]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fADEuFB12565 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:56:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:22:21 +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] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > Chip wrote: > > > > Hi BMML, > > > > Last night at the club the following hand occurred: > > > > Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale > > E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent > > > > KJTxxx > > xx > > x > > xxxx > > > > xxx A > > AKJxx Qxxx > > AKxx Qx > > x AKxxxx > > > > Qx > > xx > > JTxxxx > > QTx > > > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and that was alerted and described as Mexican > > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 > > Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). > > East passed and South bid 4 spades ending the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 > > and I was summoned to the table. > > > > It seemed to me that South had UI and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West > > would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. > > It's very clear South can't bid 4S. South must alert 4H, and pass. > Indeed. De Wael School anyone ? Everyone will agree with this one. South must explain according to North's system and bid according to his own. Now change the case slightly. South does not agree with North's explanation. He is certain he is right (even though his system card will later tell him he's wrong). Now what should he do. He should still pass, of course. But what should he explain/alert ? It is the position of the DwS that he should still explain as transfer, so as to not wake up partner. > This leaves us to West. Poor West! I think I'd eat my hand at this point > and pass, and I can't see untangling E-W into a large heart contract, > much as I'd like to. > > I think the most lively possibility is playing 4H N-S, undoubled, off > 10. The other possibility is 4S doubled off four. I think I find the > possibility of 4Sx-4 sufficiently likely to enforce it. > I would also adjust to 4H-10. > I would then give a PP to N-S, whatever the ruling, of 3 IMPs, not > accruing to E-W. This was flagrant misuse of UI. > What's so flagrant about it? Here we are - world experts at the laws, and this is an interesting case for us. Imagine the poor player who has to alert a transfer and then pass. He has my sympathy for not knowing that this is what he is supposed to do. > --JRM > > I > > actually awarded 6H making 7 to E/W thinking that 4 spades doubled for 800 > > was another possibility. It was a topic of discussion after the event and > > no one at the club agreed with my ruling, including a National Director > > (except for E/W of course :)) > > > > Gratefully, no adjustment that I could have made would have altered the > > final standings which were E/W 1st and N/S 2nd. > > > > I was thinking that E/W were due the best result that was likely but no one > > else thought that their getting to 6H was that likely. I would appreciate > > hearing what you all think. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Chip > > -- 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 Nov 14 02:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADF2oU11020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:02:50 +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 fADF2hH11007 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:02:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.28]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fADEuKB12638 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:56:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF1238F.F8081544@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:43:43 +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: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While thinking about claims in general, I came accross something which might well be understood by most, but perhaps not clearly set out in the Laws. I would like to illustrate with an example, which I have constructed. I hope that I have covered all bases in constructing it. dummy: AQxx AKxxxx xx A decl: KJxxx xx Axx xxx Playing four spades, declarer receives the lead of diamonds (thank you). He draws trumps in 3 rounds and cashes AK of hearts. When both follow, he claims for 13 tricks, without a further statement. The TD rules that it is inconceivable that this declarer (capabilities known) would not know there is one more heart out and would not play heart ruff, club to the table, 2 diamonds and a club gone on the free hearts, one diamond and one club ruff. In fact the TD rules all other lines "irrational for the class of player involved" Now put the same cards in the hand of another declarer of the same class. Play goes as before, but this declarer accompanies his claim with the statement "I'll ruff two more hearts if needed". When confronted with this strange fact, it turns out that declarer has seen 5 hearts and 3 diamonds on the table. Since he now has only 7 hearts, he needs them 4-2 in order to be able to throw one diamond on the fifth. This declarer has issued a (correct in his mind) claim for 10 tricks if hearts are 4-2 and 11 if they are 3-3. How many tricks do we award ? Well, even if we assume that the claimer is of great ability, in this case we must rule that he shall ruff a heart, (noticing that they are 4-2, let's say that RHO has the doubleton), play to the ace of clubs, ruff a second heart (noticing that they are in fact 3-2), ruff a club, throw two diamonds on the fifth and the (now rediscovererd) sixth hearts, and concede a final diamond. We award 12 tricks, even if declarer only claimed 10 or 11, but we do not award 13 tricks. In fact, we rule that the second heart ruff is a "normal" play, while for another claimer of the same class we have ruled it to be an irrational one. Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or irrational is not only dependent on the class of player involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the cards ? -- 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 Nov 14 03:10:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADG9v019389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:09:57 +1100 (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 fADG9pH19385 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.176.138] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 163g26-0004ej-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:03:31 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c16c5c$ace40420$8ab07ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:02:58 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > > Last night at the club the following hand occurred: > > > > > > Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale > > > E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent > > > > > > KJTxxx > > > xx > > > x > > > xxxx > > > > > > xxx A > > > AKJxx Qxxx > > > AKxx Qx > > > x AKxxxx > > > > > > Qx > > > xx > > > JTxxxx > > > QTx > > > > > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and that was alerted and described as Mexican > > > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 > > > Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). > > > East passed and South bid 4 spades ending the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 > > > and I was summoned to the table. > > > > > > It seemed to me that South had UI and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West > > > would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. > > > > It's very clear South can't bid 4S. South must alert 4H, and pass. > > > > Indeed. De Wael School anyone ? > > Everyone will agree with this one. South must explain > according to North's system and bid according to his own. > > Now change the case slightly. South does not agree with > North's explanation. He is certain he is right (even though > his system card will later tell him he's wrong). Now what > should he do. > > He should still pass, of course. But what should he > explain/alert ? > It is the position of the DwS that he should still explain > as transfer, so as to not wake up partner. If the dWS says that, then the dWS is an ass... South is supposed to tell the opponents what his system is. In the case where he is actually wrong about 2D, then he will be doing this if he tells them that 4H is a transfer. But suppose he is right about 2D? Now he knows that 4H is natural, but knows also (or may know also) that North, who thinks 2D is Romex, believes 4H to be a transfer. He should not tell his opponents this, for it is not his system (nor, of course, should he alert it). > > I think the most lively possibility is playing 4H N-S, undoubled, off > > 10. The other possibility is 4S doubled off four. I think I find the > > possibility of 4Sx-4 sufficiently likely to enforce it. > > > > I would also adjust to 4H-10. Well, one could do that. But consider what West knows (from AI). He knows from South's action in alerting 4H and then passing it that NS are in the middle of a misunderstanding (or that South is perpetrating a somewhat unusual variety of psyche). He can deduce that South has a weak two in diamonds and that North has spades. While he cannot be sure that if he doubles 4H, his side's actions over North's 4S will lead to a superior result, he also cannot be sure either that North will be permitted to bid 4S or that East will not know what to do over 4S if North is permitted to bid it. I would therefore consider it not unlikely that West would double 4H; if this is deemed to lead to 4S doubled down four or to 6H making (since East is as capable of working out the situation as West), I would have no difficulty with an adjudication that encompassed some or all of these results. Perhaps 50% * EW +500 (4H down 10), 30% * EW +800 (4S* down four), 20% * EW +1430 (6H making). This kind of ruling, incidentally, introduces a prinicple that arose in Paris and about which there seems to be some disagreement. There, a player said that if he'd been given a correct explanation, he would have done X instead of Y. The ruling was that he would in fact have done X only some of the time, and Y (or indeed Z) some of the rest of the time. Whereas I don't really have a problem with that, there were those who did. 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 Nov 14 03:13:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADGCve19424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:12:57 +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 fADGCpH19420 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:12:52 +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 ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:06:27 +0100 Message-ID: <00d801c16c5d$32c64ee0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:06:48 +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, November 13, 2001 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 *snip* > > I would then give a PP to N-S, whatever the ruling, of 3 IMPs, not > > accruing to E-W. This was flagrant misuse of UI. > > > > What's so flagrant about it? Here we are - world experts at > the laws, and this is an interesting case for us. Imagine > the poor player who has to alert a transfer and then pass. > He has my sympathy for not knowing that this is what he is > supposed to do. > *snip* > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > I couldn't have said it better. The poor player has my full sympathy, but the score will be adjusted. There already are enough players who flare up in difficult cases (UI cases are always difficult for those who don't fully understand the Laws). The last thing that is needed is a flammable TD. 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 Nov 14 03:23:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADGNVT19440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:23:31 +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 fADGNPH19436 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:23:25 +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 RAA13638; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:15:32 +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 RAA27516; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:16:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011113165855.02445260@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:17:33 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 In-Reply-To: <3BF1238F.F8081544@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 14:43 13/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or >irrational is not only dependent on the class of player >involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the >cards ? AG : jurisprudency has it that a declarer who tables without a word after discovering that suits are breaking well (or as well as they have to) knows that they are. Else why table just at this moment ? Perhaps we should demand that he say 'well, since plums are breaking, I need only ruff one', nut we don't. Also, some declarers tables with a contingency statement like 'I will make 11 tricks if the SK is placed, 10 if not'. We all accept those claims as complete. But the statement your declarer made 'I will ruff if the suit is not established' is incomplete. It doesn't say how the declarer intends to know when the suit is established. In comparison to the first case, it seems obvious from the way he plays and claims that he doesn't know what happens. So, in accepting a claim with minimal wording, and not accepting a claim that specifies that the suit might be breaking 4-2, we only use evidence from the declarer's statements or non-statements. That's what we are asked to do. So WTP ? Of course, if the number of ruffs needed to establish the suit is not known at the time of the claim (that is, more than one card is still missing in the suit), and declarer doesn't state it, we will suppose that he goes wrong (ruffing twice when only one ruff is needed, ruffing only once when two are needed). A similar case : a) declarer plays AK of trumps, sees they are 22, and claims : OK b) declarer plays AK of trumps, having AKQ, sees they are 32, and claims : OK, provided he doesn't need to ruff a loser in the short hand; If he does, he must state it, and say how he intends to go back to his hand. c) declarer plays AK of trumps, having AK only (a high trump remains), and claims : we will give him the other tricks only if his hand is otherwise high. Perhaps he has an outside long suit to reel off, and he then has to say 'you ruff whenever you want, the rest is mine'. d) declarer plays AK of trumps, having AK only (a high trump remains), and says : 'since there is no remaining trump, I have the rest by playing so-and-do' : his declarations falsify the premise that he knows there is one and only one outlurker. That means we will have to be more severe than in case c. It seems strange that saying nothing can convey more about one's awareness of the deal than saying too much, but so it is. We have to judge from the statement. No statement means 'it is obvious', which it will often be ; a statement implying miscount has to be taken as a miscount. Perhaps this has something to do with the Fifth Amendment ? 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 Nov 14 03:53:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADGqdg19458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:52:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADGqXH19454 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:52:33 +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 RAA00191; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:43:01 +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 RAA20105; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:46:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011113173703.02569370@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:46:47 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 In-Reply-To: <005501c16c5c$ace40420$8ab07ad5@pbncomputer> References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@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 16:02 13/11/2001 +0000, David Burn wrote: >This kind of ruling, incidentally, introduces a prinicple that arose in >Paris and about which there seems to be some disagreement. There, a >player said that if he'd been given a correct explanation, he would have >done X instead of Y. The ruling was that he would in fact have done X >only some of the time, and Y (or indeed Z) some of the rest of the time. >Whereas I don't really have a problem with that, there were those who >did. AG : I would rather state that 'there was a probability P that he would do X, and a probability Q that he would do Y', and more cases if needed' This is harder to quarrel with. If you, as an AC member, decide that West will do different things at different times faced with one problem, you are calling him unreliable, which he might not like. If you decide that there is such-and-such probability that he would have done what he did, you are only telling him that the problem he'd be faced with is difficult and that you aren't sure he would get the right answer. And this problem is indeed difficult. BTW, I remember somebody who got a cold bottom in such a case : AQJ10xxxxxx (ten of them) x -- Jx LHO : 4D RHO : alert ; and bids 6S. You and me and him know what happened : LHO has opened a natural 4D, and RHO took it as Namyats. But how would you react ? This particular player passed, and -10 wans't a good score for him. 7DX-4 would have been. Everybody plays in 4S (or 5), making 11-12 tricks. It is particularly frustrating to get a semi-solid 10-carder for the first time in your non-gulash carreer, and not even being able to bid it :-] But it also means that we can't be sure that a player facing such a strange situation will always go right -even if he pretends he could well do. Regards, Alain. >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 04:36:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADHZfN19482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:35:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fADHZaH19478 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:35:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.134.93] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 163hN5-0007Cl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c16c68$ab6e0f80$5d867ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011113165855.02445260@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:28:53 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > >Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or > >irrational is not only dependent on the class of player > >involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the > >cards ? Well, here is a minute from the Paris meeting on 30th October: 3. The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see. Now, Herman's example was of a case in which declarer begins with a suit of AKxxxx facing xx; after both have followed to the ace and king, declarer (believing that he began with only five of the suit in dummy) makes a claim including three or four heart tricks on the basis that he will "ruff two hearts if need be". (A declarer who says nothing is assumed by Herman and other kindly souls to be claiming five heart tricks on the basis that he knows he has to ruff one more round of the suit - why he should know this instead of mistakenly believing that the entire suit is good is unclear to me, but then so are all of Herman's views on claims.) Assume that the suit is AK8762 facing 53. On the ace, East plays the four and West the nine; on the king, East plays the jack and West the ten; on the two, East would show out and West would play the queen. Per the Paris minute, declarer would be assumed to see, and to take account of, the play of the queen. He is also assumed to have seen, and to have taken account of, the play of the jack, the ten, and the nine. He is thus, presumably, allowed to know that the eight is high; even though he (mistakenly) believes that there is an outstanding card in the suit, he "knows" that it is not higher than the eight. What of his statement now, and what of his claim? 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 Nov 14 05:28:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADISDd19529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:28:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADIS4H19521 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:28:05 +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 163iBp-000Ogd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:16:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >Dealer West >E/W vulnerable > >West North East South >1S 2H 3S pass > 4H pass pass pass > >When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had >misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > >However the TD allowed him to change. > > 4 S 5H >double pass pass pass > >Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > >In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after >play ends. > >What will be the decision of the TD? L82C requires the TD to give adjusted scores treating both sides as non-offending. Since they are adjusted scores, we look at L12C and find that since a result was obtained on the board we use L12C2 [or L12C3]. We also are quite likely to split the scores to reach more than 100% on the board because of the requirement to treat both sides as non- offending. So, absent TD error, what would have happened? West would have played 4H, probably down 4. So we assign NS+400 to both sides. Ok, you look at the hand, and if you think that down three or down five are quite possible, you might give NS+500 to N/S, NS+300 to E/W, treating both as non-offending, or you might give a weighted score between these three scores if L12C3 is enabled. But the important point is that the ruling is definitely to play in 4H because that is what would have happened without the TD error. --------------------------- Ed Reppert writes >At 4:46 PM +0100 11/12/01, Ben Schelen wrote: >>In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after >>play ends. >> >>What will be the decision of the TD? >Around here (ACBL, District 4) I'd bet on "director error, average >plus, both sides". > >I doubt that's the correct ruling, though. :-) No, it is not, but this is a common mistake. Apart from the ACBL where this seems to happen, I know of two NCBOs who recommend ArtASs, one European, one not. This case is an excellent example of why this is unfair. Suppose this was pairs [I do not think Ben said]. If there had been no TD error then N/S would have got a 100% board, or very nearly. In these jurisdictions where TDs do not approach L82C correctly they would not only have made an error, but after discovering it the original non- offenders would have lost nearly 40%. It is time that all NCBOs realised that L82C usually leads to assigned scores, and promulgated this fact. If a result was obtained at the table then ArtASs are unnecessary and against the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 05:28:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADISC519528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:28:12 +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 fADIS3H19520 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:28:04 +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 163iBp-000Ogc-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:21:44 +0000 Message-ID: <3ou8bgPUwV87EwhL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:44:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> >Teams, screens, League 1, Switzerland, no td from FSB. >> > >> >25. N/EW >> > >> > A8 >> > Qxxxxx >> > Q10xx >> > AJ >> > Qx xxxx >> > Kxx J10x >> > xxx AKJxx >> > KQxxxx x >> > KJ109xx >> > Ax >> > x >> > 1098x >> > >> Another possibility, often forgotten on BLML, is that once the TD >> reads L25B out, the player may have no further interest and might decide >> to stick with the 2D bid. If the player has attempted to change the 2D >> bid then I do not believe he can do this, though the Law is ambiguous, >> but if he has not and is merely asking what the Law would be he can >> certainly decide not to proceed. > >My feeling is that the player can always choose to stick with his original >bid - although obviously there can be a lot of UI. Suppose you try to change 2D to something else, and then the TD is called. The next player does not accept the change, then you can stick with 2D under L25B2B1 - but partner has to pass once. No, you cannot just stick with your original call without penalty once you have tried to change it. The question is whether you can stick with it when you have merely enquired about the possibility of change, rather than tried to change it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 05:52:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADIpWt19552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:51:32 +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 fADIpQH19548 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:51:26 +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 163iYU-0006cE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:45:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:43:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@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 >"John R. Mayne" wrote: >> I would then give a PP to N-S, whatever the ruling, of 3 IMPs, not >> accruing to E-W. This was flagrant misuse of UI. >What's so flagrant about it? Here we are - world experts at >the laws, and this is an interesting case for us. Imagine >the poor player who has to alert a transfer and then pass. >He has my sympathy for not knowing that this is what he is >supposed to do. It had to happen eventually! I agree with Herman! Let's leave the PP for cases where the average player will understand the UI problems without question, and still fails to follow L73C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 06:23:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADJMgF22144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:22:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fADJMZH22140 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:22:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-239-159.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.239.159] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fADJG9P26695 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:16:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007501c16c78$50eeff00$9fef75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:16:41 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > > > Chip wrote: > > > > > > Hi BMML, > > > > > > Last night at the club the following hand occurred: > > > > > > Event: Grand National Team Qualifying 20 pt Victory Scale > > > E/W vul, Both teams pretty competent > > > > > > KJTxxx > > > xx > > > x > > > xxxx > > > > > > xxx A > > > AKJxx Qxxx > > > AKxx Qx > > > x AKxxxx > > > > > > Qx > > > xx > > > JTxxxx > > > QTx > > > > > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and > > > that was alerted and described as Mexican > > > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). > > > West passed and North bid 4 > > > Hearts! South realized that he had misbid and alerted (transfer). > > > East passed and South bid 4 spades > > > ending the auction. 4 Spades went down 4 > > > and I was summoned to the table. > > > > > > It seemed to me that South had UI > > > and couldn't bid 4 spades so that West > > > would have an opportunity to double 4 hearts and get into the auction. > > > > It's very clear South can't bid 4S. South must alert 4H, and pass. > > > > Indeed. De Wael School anyone ? > > Everyone will agree with this one. South must explain > according to North's system and bid according to his own. I somewhat disagree with this version. South must explain the partnership's systematic agreements to opponents, and must bid according to his own system (where 2D was a weak two). > Now change the case slightly. South does not agree with > North's explanation. He is certain he is right (even though > his system card will later tell him he's wrong). Now what > should he do. > > He should still pass, of course. But what should he > explain/alert ? > It is the position of the DwS that he should still explain > as transfer, so as to not wake up partner. It is my position that S here must explain 4H as natural, and N then has UI, too. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 10:09:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fADN8if07065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:08:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fADN8dH07061 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:08:39 +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 fADN2Kw29523 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:02:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002001c16c97$271da400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:53:20 -0800 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 > Ben Schelen writes > >Dealer West > >E/W vulnerable > > > >West North East South > >1S 2H 3S pass > >4H pass pass pass > > > >When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > >misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) When did East notice his mistake and call the TD? 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 Nov 14 14:14:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAE3DME00414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:13:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAE3DGH00410 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:13:17 +1100 (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 WAA27639 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA14664 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:06:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:06:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111140306.WAA14664@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The question is whether you can stick with [your original call] > when you have merely enquired about the possibility of change, rather > than tried to change it. No FLB at hand, but isn't there something (perhaps around L9) that says a player doesn't lose rights by summoning the TD? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 15:12:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAE4CNM01183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:12:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAE4CDH01160 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d360.iae.nl [212.61.5.106]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 83E7320F06 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:05:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:46:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe we start a new thread. I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by a non-contestant. What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Schelen To: bridge-laws Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again > Dealer West > E/W vulnerable > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3S pass > 4H pass pass pass > > When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > However the TD allowed him to change. > > 4 S 5H > double pass pass pass > > Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > > In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after > play ends. > > What will be the decision of the TD? > > Ben > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 14 15:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAE4CMi01182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:12:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAE4CDH01159 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d360.iae.nl [212.61.5.106]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E5F420F0E for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:05:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008501c16cc1$9b872da0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:48:50 +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 After the auction period has ended, east realized his fault. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > Ben Schelen writes > > >Dealer West > > >E/W vulnerable > > > > > >West North East South > > >1S 2H 3S pass > > >4H pass pass pass > > > > > >When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > > >misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > When did East notice his mistake and call the TD? > > 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 Nov 14 15:22:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAE4MI503148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:22:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop1pub.verizon.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAE4MBH03119 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust7.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.7]) by smtppop1pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id WAA46774174 Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:14:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <003501c16cc3$1f56f6a0$0b00000a@mike> From: "mike dodson" To: "BLML" References: <008501c16c39$84a31320$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <008b01c16c3c$d620dcc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <009101c16c3d$2d9aa940$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:44:12 -0800 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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rik Terveen" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] case from Istanbul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 AM > > Subject: [BLML] case from Istanbul > > > > > > Hi BLML, > > > > In Istanbul Ladies Team Leaque there was a deal which was so > discussed > > and also appealed, but discussion is not finished yet. > > > > Board no:16 dealer W. E/W VUL. > > N > > Q1085 > > 5 > > J96 > > K9875 > > W E > > 763 K4 > > KQ842 AJ1073 > > 10 AQ82 > > AQJ3 106 > > > > S > > AJ92 > > 96 > > K7543 > > 42 > > In screen table bidding: > > W N E S > > p p 1H p > > 2C* p 2D** Dbl*** > > Rdbl**** p p 2S > > 4H 4S dbl p > > 5H All pass > > > > * = 2C alerted only "DRURY" . > > ** = 2D alerted min 3 cards on D and good opening hand. > > *** = Dbl alerted as Diamonds > > ****= Rdbl alerted by West to North as control and good H holding > and > > wants to play min 4H. > > but by East to South as Diamonds and want to play 2D rdbl. > > Then South ask what about DRURY and East says that they play drury > but > > not always fit. South calls Director and say if they play real drury > > then she want to say pass but if they play like explanation she will > > bid. Director says her to continue according to explanation and she > > bids 2S... > > After Ace of spade lead by south 5H just made -650/NS. And director > > called again. > > In EW's CC after 3 pos. 1M opening only drury no more explanation. > > What is your director ruling and what is your appeal comments. > > In reality director(not me!) ruling was score stands and appeal > > decision was %50 2D** -2 +1000/NS & %50 4H +1 -650/NS. > > Thank you for your further comments. > > Best Regards. > > M. Fahir Üzümcü. > > Chief National TD of Turkish Bridge Federation > > and member of Istanbul Appeal Commity. > > fahir@akademibric.org > > www.akademibric.org > > > Hi Fahir! > > In my opinion the interesting point is after the auction had gone: > > W N E S > p p 1H p > 2C* p 2D** Dbl*** > Rdbl**** p p > > Whether the Drury shows a fit or not is not that relevant. What _is_ > relevant is whether the Rdbl showed a diamond control or a desire to > play 2DXX. > Now there are two possibilities: > > A. EW can show that the Rdbl was to play 2D XX > > EW can somehow show system notes that make it reasonable to assume > that the Rdbl was to play. (Reasonable is enough for me in this case, > since I doubt many players actually will have a specific agreement > about this sequence.) In that case South has been given the correct > information on the deal and the table result stands. > > B. EW cannot show that the Rdbl was to play 2D XX > > There is no indication that the explanation from East to South was > correct. South has been misinformed. Given the knowledge that the Rdbl > was not to play, I find it very possible that South would pass 2D XX. > In that case, the adjusted score should be based on a contract of 2D > XX. I don't see any reason to give another result than 2D XX -2. > Of course, once the appeals committee takes a look at the case, they > can decide how often South would pass and how often South would bid > 2S. If they decide that South would bid 50 % of the time and pass 50 % > of the time, the given appeals committee decision would be reached. It > seems like a good decision to me. Agreeing completely up to this point, I don't understand how the committee can ignore South's statement regarding passing 2 diamonds. At that point South's peers are those who would pass: 100% 2D XX. Mike Dodson > > Greetings, > > 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-LAW 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 Wed Nov 14 20:41:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAE9eS015441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:40:28 +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.poczta.onet.pl (smtp2.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.130.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAE9eIH15437 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:40:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:25609 "HELO kavanagh") by ps2.test.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:33:14 +0100 Message-ID: <016c01c16cee$82c2b820$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "bridge-laws" References: <008501c16cc1$9b872da0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:26:49 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again > After the auction period has ended, east realized his fault. > *After* the auction period has ended? Do you mean an opening lead has been made? If so I cannot see how the TD could have allowed East change his bid. OTOH you didn't mention anyone making any opening lead so I assume that the TD was called when we were still in the auction period but please confirm this. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Tego nie znajdziesz w zadnym sklepie! [ http://oferty.onet.pl ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 22:03:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEB2Rq15512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:02:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rti18.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEB2HH15504 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by mel-rti18.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:55:48 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.79.48) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:54:57 +0100 Message-ID: <008501c16cfa$5ab7bfe0$304ff9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:51:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When you give a slow play penalty and the score is 15-13VP or à 40-40% in pairs, does somebody complains? Don't worry, it's more frequent to have a score smaller than average than bigger! I bet that at the end of EVERY tournament, score is smaller than average, and when it isn't, it's not TD's fault ... Olivier. > Maybe we start a new thread. > > I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a > match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. > The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much > VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by > a non-contestant. > What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ben Schelen > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:46 PM > Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > > Dealer West > > E/W vulnerable > > > > West North East South > > 1S 2H 3S pass > > 4H pass pass pass > > > > When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > > misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > > > However the TD allowed him to change. > > > > 4 S 5H > > double pass pass pass > > > > Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > > > > In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after > > play ends. > > > > What will be the decision of the TD? > > > > Ben > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 22:03:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEB2Sr15513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:02:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rti21.wanadoo.fr (mel-rti21.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEB2JH15505 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:02:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rti21.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:55:53 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.79.48) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:55:15 +0100 Message-ID: <008601c16cfa$651fef20$304ff9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:51:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When you give a slow play penalty and the score is 15-13VP or à 40-40% in pairs, does somebody complains? Don't worry, it's more frequent to have a score smaller than average than bigger! I bet that at the end of EVERY tournament, score is smaller than average, and when it isn't, it's not TD's fault ... Olivier. > Maybe we start a new thread. > > I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a > match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. > The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much > VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by > a non-contestant. > What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ben Schelen > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:46 PM > Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > > Dealer West > > E/W vulnerable > > > > West North East South > > 1S 2H 3S pass > > 4H pass pass pass > > > > When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > > misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > > > However the TD allowed him to change. > > > > 4 S 5H > > double pass pass pass > > > > Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > > > > In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after > > play ends. > > > > What will be the decision of the TD? > > > > Ben > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 22:04:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEB4Ki15531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:04:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from magnolia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEB4EH15527 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:04:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by magnolia.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:57:47 +0100 Received: from Olivier (193.249.79.48) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 14 Nov 2001 11:56:47 +0100 Message-ID: <008e01c16cfa$9c7c4c20$304ff9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:53:32 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When you give a slow play penalty and the score is 15-13VP or à 40-40% in pairs, does somebody complains? Don't worry, it's more frequent to have a score smaller than average than bigger! I bet that at the end of EVERY tournament, score is smaller than average, and when it isn't, it's not TD's fault ... Olivier. > Maybe we start a new thread. > > I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a > match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. > The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much > VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by > a non-contestant. > What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ben Schelen > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:46 PM > Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > > Dealer West > > E/W vulnerable > > > > West North East South > > 1S 2H 3S pass > > 4H pass pass pass > > > > When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > > misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > > > However the TD allowed him to change. > > > > 4 S 5H > > double pass pass pass > > > > Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > > > > In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after > > play ends. > > > > What will be the decision of the TD? > > > > Ben > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 23:10:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEC9k116673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:09:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEC9dH16669 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:09:40 +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, 14 Nov 2001 13:03:11 +0100 Message-ID: <007d01c16d04$630edde0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:03:34 +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: Ben Schelen To: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:46 AM Subject: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > Maybe we start a new thread. > > I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a > match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. > The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much > VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by > a non-contestant. > What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? > The rights of the sides at the table precedes. In general, this is also logical since they have suffered a large 'injustice' and should be compensated. As a result, the whole rest of the field suffers a minute 'injustice'. I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results out of the comparison for the other pairs. Imagine that one plays an IMP across the field or a butler and on board 13 you have to rule NS: 7S making, +2210 NS and for EW 7H making +2210 EW. IMO both pairs are entitled to that result, but other tables should not be compared with it. If you follow that reasoning then all other pairs loose compared to the players at the table, but it will not affect the result amongst the other players. If the table is counted in the ranking than it will also affect how the rest of the field is doing with respect to each other. Any opinions on this? Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 14 23:32:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAECWjN16691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:32:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAECWcH16687 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:32:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAECQHh02686 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:26:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland 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: <3ou8bgPUwV87EwhL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > >My feeling is that the player can always choose to stick with his > original >bid - although obviously there can be a lot of UI. > > Suppose you try to change 2D to something else, and then the TD is > called. The next player does not accept the change, then you can stick > with 2D under L25B2B1 - but partner has to pass once. Sorry I missed covering this. I should have that "the player can always choose to stick to his original call, but if he tried to substitute another call which wasn't condoned there will be penalties, there can always be a lot of UI" > No, you cannot just stick with your original call without penalty once > you have tried to change it. The question is whether you can stick with > it when you have merely enquired about the possibility of change, rather > than tried to change it. I'm not sure I'm reading this the same way if a player said "Oops, I didn't mean that, I thought I was opener, I want to change it, can I?" I would regard that as "having tried to change the call" but you may well find that the offender decides to stick after hearing L25. I don't think you can force a change of call so L25B is irrelevant. There is no fixed penalty but there is copious UI. If the offender merely says "I am calling the director to see if I am allowed to change my call" then the UI may be less but the situation is not that different. Side question. I am considering condoning a purposeful correction (I don't like L25B2) but only if the extraneous information that has arisen from the situation is considered as AI for us and UI for them (they will be ad distinct advantage if it is AI to them) so I ask the TD if this is the case. L25b1 says "the auction proceeds without penalty" so what answer does the TD give me? Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 00:08:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAED7mH16713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:07:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAED7gH16709 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:07:43 +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 NAA14153; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:58:09 +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 OAA12339; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:01:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114135503.02448860@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:01:57 +0100 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again In-Reply-To: <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:46 14/11/2001 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >Maybe we start a new thread. > >I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a >match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. >The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much >VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by >a non-contestant. >What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? AG : this is no bigger problem than the fact that some pair will score more than it should if their opponents happen to revoke or drop a card. The rights of other contestants are slightly eroded. The rights of the NOP will take preceedence. Also note that the total of points must not be stable. In some forms of competition it is not. As an eample, in a Butler tournament with separate results for NS and EW, it is quite possible that the total IMPs (or VP, if converted) scored by NS be nonzero, only compensating with EW's ; but NS and EW don't compete agaisnt eachother. Also, if you organize a tournament with separate results for beginners and others, but with one global scoring (not uncommon in Flanders), the average MPs of one series will be different from 50%. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 00:29:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEDT1B16741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:29:01 +1100 (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 fAEDSoH16730 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:28:52 +1100 (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 163zzf-0008BT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:22:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:44:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> 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 >Ben Schelen writes >>Dealer West >>E/W vulnerable >> >>West North East South >>1S 2H 3S pass >> 4H pass pass pass >> >>When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had >>misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) >> >>However the TD allowed him to change. >> >> 4 S 5H >>double pass pass pass >> >>Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 >> >>In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after >>play ends. >> >>What will be the decision of the TD? > > L82C requires the TD to give adjusted scores treating both sides as >non-offending. Since they are adjusted scores, we look at L12C and find >that since a result was obtained on the board we use L12C2 [or L12C3]. >We also are quite likely to split the scores to reach more than 100% on >the board because of the requirement to treat both sides as non- >offending. Pity: I thought this was an excellent case to make a point, and now I find I have misread the question. Pillock. OK, the principles I espouse are correct, the detail I have written is total rubbish. Sorry. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. I must not confuse East with West. . . . . I must not confuse East with West. > > So, absent TD error, what would have happened? West would have played >4H, probably down 4. So we assign NS+400 to both sides. > > Ok, you look at the hand, and if you think that down three or down >five are quite possible, you might give NS+500 to N/S, NS+300 to E/W, >treating both as non-offending, or you might give a weighted score >between these three scores if L12C3 is enabled. But the important point >is that the ruling is definitely to play in 4H because that is what >would have happened without the TD error. > > --------------------------- > >Ed Reppert writes >>At 4:46 PM +0100 11/12/01, Ben Schelen wrote: > >>>In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players after >>>play ends. >>> >>>What will be the decision of the TD? > >>Around here (ACBL, District 4) I'd bet on "director error, average >>plus, both sides". >> >>I doubt that's the correct ruling, though. :-) > > No, it is not, but this is a common mistake. Apart from the ACBL >where this seems to happen, I know of two NCBOs who recommend ArtASs, >one European, one not. This case is an excellent example of why this is >unfair. > > Suppose this was pairs [I do not think Ben said]. If there had been >no TD error then N/S would have got a 100% board, or very nearly. In >these jurisdictions where TDs do not approach L82C correctly they would >not only have made an error, but after discovering it the original non- >offenders would have lost nearly 40%. > > It is time that all NCBOs realised that L82C usually leads to assigned >scores, and promulgated this fact. If a result was obtained at the >table then ArtASs are unnecessary and against the Laws. > -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 00:29:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEDT5a16744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:29:05 +1100 (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 fAEDSwH16738 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:28:58 +1100 (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 163zzg-0008BP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:22:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:40:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >Maybe we start a new thread. > >I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a >match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. >The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much >VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed by >a non-contestant. >What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? The Law book has absolute precedent. Anyway, there are always "protect the field" whingers. These things make very little effect on other players and it is very important not to treat people unfairly at the table, far more important than trivial differences elsewhere. -- 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 Nov 15 00:29:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEDT1k16740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:29:01 +1100 (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 fAEDSoH16729 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:28:52 +1100 (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 163zzg-0008BN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:22:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:38:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland References: <200111140306.WAA14664@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200111140306.WAA14664@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 >> The question is whether you can stick with [your original call] >> when you have merely enquired about the possibility of change, rather >> than tried to change it. > >No FLB at hand, but isn't there something (perhaps around L9) that says >a player doesn't lose rights by summoning the TD? Yes, but it is not true. You can condone an action violating the obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. In the current case, what rights are you talking about the player losing or not losing? -- 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 Nov 15 00:38:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEDc6L16769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:38:06 +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-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 fAEDc0H16765 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:38:01 +1100 (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 16408d-00086S-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:31:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:26:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> <007d01c16d04$630edde0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <007d01c16d04$630edde0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >From: Ben Schelen >To: bridge-laws >Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:46 AM >Subject: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > > >> Maybe we start a new thread. >> >> I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, >giving a >> match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are >available. >> The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to >much >> VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are >harmed by >> a non-contestant. >> What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the >contestants? >> >The rights of the sides at the table precedes. In general, this is >also logical since they have suffered a large 'injustice' and should >be compensated. As a result, the whole rest of the field suffers a >minute 'injustice'. > >I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results out >of the comparison for the other pairs. Imagine that one plays an IMP >across the field or a butler and on board 13 you have to rule NS: 7S >making, +2210 NS and for EW 7H making +2210 EW. IMO both pairs are >entitled to that result, but other tables should not be compared with >it. > >If you follow that reasoning then all other pairs loose compared to >the players at the table, but it will not affect the result amongst >the other players. If the table is counted in the ranking than it will >also affect how the rest of the field is doing with respect to each >other. > >Any opinions on this? If in a pairs tournament the normal contract is 4S, which happens to make +3 because of very lucky breaks. Someone bids and makes 7S. Do you want to delete that as well, to protect the field? -- 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 Nov 15 01:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEEhBe27134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEEguH27088 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:42:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAEEaYB23240 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:36:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF25A41.C89008A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:49:21 +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] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> <007501c16c78$50eeff00$9fef75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > He should still pass, of course. But what should he > > explain/alert ? > > It is the position of the DwS that he should still explain > > as transfer, so as to not wake up partner. > > It is my position that S here must explain 4H as natural, > and N then has UI, too. > Which is precisely why he should not do it. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that one is obliged to give UI to partner. OTOH, L75D2 explicitely forbids this action. But I realize I am in a minority of one on this list. However, from experience, I know that players like this answer. "explain according to partner's system - bid according to your own" is something players understand, and it makes life far easier for everyone. No need to distinguish between "are you right or is he?" and such. Really - if you do not believe the Laws say this, then perhaps it is time we change them so that they do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 01:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEEh9e27132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:09 +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 fAEEgtH27080 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAEEaUB23213 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:36:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF25939.19BC8D1D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:44:57 +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] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > >"John R. Mayne" wrote: > > >> I would then give a PP to N-S, whatever the ruling, of 3 IMPs, not > >> accruing to E-W. This was flagrant misuse of UI. > > >What's so flagrant about it? Here we are - world experts at > >the laws, and this is an interesting case for us. Imagine > >the poor player who has to alert a transfer and then pass. > >He has my sympathy for not knowing that this is what he is > >supposed to do. > > It had to happen eventually! I agree with Herman! > And in still the first five years of blml ! let's open the champagne ! No Seriously - we agree more often than not, but don't usually burden the list with it. > Let's leave the PP for cases where the average player will understand > the UI problems without question, and still fails to follow L73C. > Should be a universal opinion, I guess. -- 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 Nov 15 01:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEEhEJ27139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEEgxH27102 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAEEaaB23261 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:36:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF25C9D.B47A6D21@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:59:25 +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] Similar to San Diego #2 References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> <005501c16c5c$ace40420$8ab07ad5@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: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > Indeed. De Wael School anyone ? > > > > Everyone will agree with this one. South must explain > > according to North's system and bid according to his own. > > > > Now change the case slightly. South does not agree with > > North's explanation. He is certain he is right (even though > > his system card will later tell him he's wrong). Now what > > should he do. > > > > He should still pass, of course. But what should he > > explain/alert ? > > It is the position of the DwS that he should still explain > > as transfer, so as to not wake up partner. > > If the dWS says that, then the dWS is an ass... South is supposed to > tell the opponents what his system is. OK. How ? What is his system ? South knows that North has spades. South knows that North intends 4He to show spades. He is absolutely certain of that. South does not know for certain what his system is. he thinks 2Di shows diamonds, but partner seems to disagree. South may be very certain of one or the other, or he may be uncertain. Why should we ask of poor South to decide what the system really is, when he is absolutely certain of the real intention of partner with his bid of 4He. Suppose East has hearts. He would like to double to show them. But South tells him (according to the majority school) that North has hearts. When all the time South really knows that North has spades. Don't you think East has a valid case of MI if South does not alert ? By not alerting, South: -gives UI to North -breaks L75D2 in the process -gives MI to East (technically if not legally) I feel the game is more served with having South alert than not. Why should South have to explain something different according to his "system", when he has to bid exactly the same regardless of whether North or South has the right "system". > In the case where he is actually > wrong about 2D, then he will be doing this if he tells them that 4H is a > transfer. But suppose he is right about 2D? Now he knows that 4H is > natural, but knows also (or may know also) that North, who thinks 2D is > Romex, believes 4H to be a transfer. He should not tell his opponents > this, for it is not his system (nor, of course, should he alert it). > And yet it is the intended meaning of 4He. > > > I think the most lively possibility is playing 4H N-S, undoubled, > off > > > 10. The other possibility is 4S doubled off four. I think I find the > > > possibility of 4Sx-4 sufficiently likely to enforce it. > > > > > > > I would also adjust to 4H-10. > > Well, one could do that. But consider what West knows (from AI). He > knows from South's action in alerting 4H and then passing it that NS are > in the middle of a misunderstanding (or that South is perpetrating a > somewhat unusual variety of psyche). He can deduce that South has a weak > two in diamonds and that North has spades. While he cannot be sure that > if he doubles 4H, his side's actions over North's 4S will lead to a > superior result, he also cannot be sure either that North will be > permitted to bid 4S or that East will not know what to do over 4S if > North is permitted to bid it. I would therefore consider it not unlikely > that West would double 4H; if this is deemed to lead to 4S doubled down > four or to 6H making (since East is as capable of working out the > situation as West), I would have no difficulty with an adjudication that > encompassed some or all of these results. Perhaps 50% * EW +500 (4H down > 10), 30% * EW +800 (4S* down four), 20% * EW +1430 (6H making). > I agree wholeheartedly with David's better insights in this part of the problem. > This kind of ruling, incidentally, introduces a prinicple that arose in > Paris and about which there seems to be some disagreement. There, a > player said that if he'd been given a correct explanation, he would have > done X instead of Y. The ruling was that he would in fact have done X > only some of the time, and Y (or indeed Z) some of the rest of the time. > Whereas I don't really have a problem with that, there were those who > did. > Yet it seems the correct approach. There is a very big difference between a MI and an UI case. In UI cases, L16 says a particular action must not be taken. So a L12C3 ruling should not include any percentage of that action. But in MI cases, it is possible that even with correct information, the same action would still be taken. Thus, a L12C3 adjustment can take such a percentage into consideration. -- 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 Nov 15 01:44:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEEhF527142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:16 +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 fAEEh2H27114 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:43:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.178]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAEEadB23289 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:36:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:34:56 +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: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've decided to start a new thread. I'll start by stating the case I'll want to address. > > > KJTxxx > > > xx > > > x > > > xxxx > > > > > > xxx A > > > AKJxx Qxxx > > > AKxx Qx > > > x AKxxxx > > > > > > Qx > > > xx > > > JTxxxx > > > QTx > > > > > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and that was alerted and described as Mexican > > > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). West passed and North bid 4 > > > Hearts! I think it does not matter, but since the one case poses no problems, we consider the case where South is correct and 2Di is indeed weak with diamonds. Under the system as North describes it (which is what they played previously, I guess), 4He shows a preference for Spades. South tells you this story and he asks what he should do. Your first answer is of course : bid as if you had not heard partner's explanation. In this case that means : Pass. We all agree on this. We also agree that this is the correct action regardless of the true meaning of 2Di. Next South asks us how he should alert/non-alert/explain 4He. Now according to the Majority school, the answer should be : "if you are certain that you have made a misbid, you should explain this as a transfer, for that is what it is in your system; if OTOH you are certain that you have the system correct, then you should explain it as a natural bid, because that is what it is in your system; if you are uncertain of your system, you should explain ... (please Davids, fill in, I have no idea what you want this player to explain)" According to the De Wael School, the answer should be : "You should do your best not to inform partner that he has not correctly interpreted your 2Di bid, and you should therefor explain the bid as a transfer." Now for one moment I do not want to argue that this second answer is the only correct one under the Laws. I happen to believe that it is, but I know I won't convince you of that. First of all I want you to admit that this second reply will be far easier to give to a simple player. "bid according to your own idea of system, explain according to partner's" is a very simple answer, easy to give and easy to understand and to apply. I hope you will not think that this is untrue. Secondly I want you to look at the reply in detail. Is it against the Laws ? You all keep saying that the opponents are entitled to the correct explanation, according to the system. And you'd be right. The opponents are entitled to that. But what use have they for it ? When the opponents get answered "he has hearts" or "he's showing hearts", when in fact he is showing spades, and probably has spades, that is a misinformation. Now we all know what to do in that case. We should be looking for evidence that the explanation is correct, or else assume that it is wrong. And even if we find some evidence suggesting that indeed 2Di is natural, and 4He therefor as well, then still we would be right in ruling : ""apparently, the true explanation is "over 2Di natural, natural, but over 2Di Mexican, transfer to spades". So there has been insufficient information, so we rule MI.". Don't say that such a ruling would be impossible. A player bids hearts showing spades, his partner knows this, but uses some systemic back door to explain it as hearts and expects to get away with it. Contrast this with the ruling if South explains it as spades. Technically that is a wrong explanation. But in reality, it conforms to the hand North actually has. So even if EW claim MI, they certainly can't claim any resulting damage. You should realize that the "alert" and subsequent word "tranfer" could mean three things : 1) My partner has spades 2) My partner is showing spades 3) By system, that bid shows spades Now we, here on blml, know that the real meaning is number 3, and since that is untrue, we are right in calling that MI, even when the bidder actually has spades. But most players think that the alert means number 1, and some are very cross when the player does not have spades. More experienced players think that the alert means number 2, but not a single player I know would understand that 3) is the real meaning. Besides (apart from occasionally), they are not interested in number 3, they would like number 1, but they'll settle for 2. So there we have it. Your advice to players contains MI, mine doesn't. (not in actual fact) Your advice contains UI to partner, mine doesn't. Your advice breaks L45D2, mine doesn't. And my advice is easier for the player as well. Now I know what you, in particular DWS will say. "but you're breaking the Law". Well David, so be it. You are saying that this player, by alerting, has told his opponents that the 4He bid, systemically, means spades, while in truth it systemically means hearts (that's meaning 3 from above). You are saying that is misinformation. Well, I'm countering that by saying that this player, by alerting, has told his opponents that the 4He bid shows spades (that's meaning 2 from above). This player has not lied to his opponents. The call was truely intended to show spades. That's what he told them. I am saying that this is not misinformation. The bid shows spades, the bidder intends it to show spades, the explainer explains it as showing spades. How can that be misinformation? I really don't see what you all have against the De Wael School. -- 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 Nov 15 02:43:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEFhMu06066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep02-svc.swip.net (fep02.swip.net [130.244.199.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEFhDH06058 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.80.71]) by fep02-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20011114153646.FPIE4722.fep02-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:36:46 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c16d20$339a0f00$475097d4@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] Re: law 82C Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:22:40 +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 I agree that the number of VP:s can be less than 30, and maybe even more than 30. But what about this: Inthe qualifying stage of, say the Bridge Olympiad, four teams qualify for the next round. team A has 200 VP, teams B and C 199 VP each. B plays C in the last round. team A happily scores 15 and think they are through. But when B plays C the TD has tu use 82C on all 24 boards. Both B and C score 72-0 and both get 25 VP. Team A has no chance. I hear you all say this does not happen and, sure, it does not, but theoretically? Comments? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 02:43:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEFhLS06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:21 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEFhCH06057 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:13 +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 QAA19974; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:33:35 +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 QAA07521; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:36:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114162931.02457e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:37:22 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 In-Reply-To: <3BF25A41.C89008A9@village.uunet.be> References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> <007501c16c78$50eeff00$9fef75c2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:49 14/11/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >However, from experience, I know that players like this >answer. >"explain according to partner's system - bid according to >your own" >is something players understand, and it makes life far >easier for everyone. No need to distinguish between "are >you right or is he?" and such. Really - if you do not >believe the Laws say this, then perhaps it is time we change >them so that they do. AG : they definitely don't say this, but it has distinct advantages : a) easy to explain b) minimizes UI c) treatment by TDs and ACs is easier (at least this argument should convince blmlists). But, above all, the average player will feel less aggieved if technicalities are needed to get a result out of the mess (which will often happen with dWS) than if he feels robbed by the more-or-less visible use of UI. And the OS will also feel more at ease if it gets an adjusted score on the base of 'you created the mess' than on the base of 'you used UI'. The former doesn't endanger their reputation, and is also less debatable. Of course, the use of dWS principles will make the OS lose points more often than the actual system, but I consider it a virtue rather than a sin - it will compel them to know their system or use an easier one. Herman, after much thinking, I allow you to count me on my side. And that's perhaps as much as manbitesdoggish than your agreeing with David :-] 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 03:00:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEG0bk06099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:00:37 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEG0UH06095 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:00:30 +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 QAA23726; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:50:54 +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 QAA23059; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:41 +0100 To: blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] dWS info correction 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, Here is a case that I feel closely related to dWS principles. I know I didn't do what the Rules demanded, but I still feel it was the right way to act, and I wonder whether somebody could find justifications for it. NB : if nobody can, then perhaps it is time to switch to dW principles, because it *really* helped to avoid any problem. My hand is : Q9xxx A10x xx Kxx The bidding : 1D 1NT* p 2D** 3D 3S X p p p * 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, normal values for an O/C at prevailing vulnerability. ** on our CC and in my mind : general force (unassuming cue) explained by partner as : constructive spade raise (which it would have been had RHO done something else than pass) As you can see, partner's explanation just happens to match my hand. Laws clearly state that before the lead, I must correct partner's explanation and somebody will then call the Director. But partner's description has given them more, not less nor different, information. And they know on which basis my partner decided to bid. So I decided not to correct anything, because I felt they weren't at any disadvantage after the wrong explanation. To the contrary, if I corrected the information, two things could have happened : a) they could have made a strange lead based on the presumption that we had no fit b) they could have complained that my correction misled them : "it is plain to see that the explanation was correct ; why did he pretend otherwise ?" Logic dictates that I don't pip a word (well, at least my logic). The Rules say otherwise. Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly here. I'd suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : "when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of the set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the hand happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" What's 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 Thu Nov 15 03:33:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEGXBA06162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:33:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEGX4H06158 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:33:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d323.iae.nl [212.61.5.69]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A99B520F0F for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:26:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003501c16d29$1a6073e0$45053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <008501c16cc1$9b872da0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> <016c01c16cee$82c2b820$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:45:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad, East's pass was the second pass. One pass later, the third, and before the opening lead everybody realized the fault. It was too late for Law 25B but you are right; the auction period has not ended because there was not yet a lead. I was not present but the story was told to me like this. Thank you for the correction. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski To: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ben Schelen" > To: "bridge-laws" > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:48 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > > After the auction period has ended, east realized his fault. > > > > > *After* the auction period has ended? Do you mean > an opening lead has been made? If so I cannot > see how the TD could have allowed East change > his bid. > > OTOH you didn't mention anyone making > any opening lead so I assume that the TD > was called when we were still in the auction > period but please confirm this. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > > -- > > Tego nie znajdziesz w zadnym sklepie! > [ http://oferty.onet.pl ] > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 03:33:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEGX2206156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:33:02 +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 fAEGWuH06152 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:32:56 +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 fAEGPdL19937; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:25:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011114102314.00a1d7b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:27:06 -0600 To: Hans-Olof =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hall=E9n?= From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Cc: "bridge-laws" In-Reply-To: <002501c16d20$339a0f00$475097d4@swipnet.se> 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 fAEGWwH06153 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:22 PM 11/14/01 +0100, Hans-Olof Hallén wrote: >I agree that the number of VP:s can be less than 30, and maybe even more >than 30. But what about this: >Inthe qualifying stage of, say the Bridge Olympiad, four teams qualify for >the next round. team A has 200 VP, teams B and C 199 VP each. B plays C in >the last round. team A happily scores 15 and think they are through. But >when B plays C the TD >has tu use 82C on all 24 boards. Both B and C score 72-0 and both get 25 VP. >Team A has no chance. >I hear you all say this does not happen and, sure, it does not, but >theoretically? >Comments? OTOH, what will you tell Team B or Team C if they are eliminated because the TD made an error at their table that prevented them from having a chance to get a good score? The number of cases where one pair, at the table, has been cheated out of a chance to qualify is far larger than the number of cases where someone else loses out because _both_ pairs got good results. Achieve justice at the table first, and if in some rare cases that causes others to lose out in "impossible" ways so be it. Tell pair A to blame the TD, not the laws. As long as I'm not the TD.... :) 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 Nov 15 03:33:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEGXUg06176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:33:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEGXGH06164 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:33:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d323.iae.nl [212.61.5.69]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E41CC20F88 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:26:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003a01c16d29$21ada780$45053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <008401c16cc1$9af01dc0$cd053dd4@b0e7g1> <008e01c16cfa$9c7c4c20$304ff9c1@olivier> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:25:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Olivier, Not any contestant will care when a competitor looses aVP. For me the question is very fundamental. Just fancy: In a swiss of seven boards a TD blunders in a 3NT. The Law 12C2 ruling results in one team 3NT made and the other 3NT minus one. The second table 2NT just made and on the other boards no score. The match results in 18-17: 5 VP more. As a consequence of the fault of the TD, not a contestant, two teams get more than the average. This wil influence the ranking or not? The other teams will not enjoy it, especially when the prizes are not for them. Is the Law the Law? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Olivier Beauvillain To: Liste Arbitrage Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > When you give a slow play penalty and the score is 15-13VP or à 40-40% in > pairs, does somebody complains? Don't worry, it's more frequent to have a > score smaller than average than bigger! I bet that at the end of EVERY > tournament, score is smaller than average, and when it isn't, it's not TD's > fault ... > Olivier. > > > Maybe we start a new thread. > > > > I did conciously not mention that the TD gave both sides +3 imp, giving a > > match-result of 16-15 VP's, whereas normally only 30 VP's are available. > > The other contestants do not like that a fault of a TD results in to much > > VP's, or in pairs in more than 100% together. They think they are harmed > by > > a non-contestant. > > What precedes: the rights of both sides, or the rights of the contestants? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ben Schelen > > To: bridge-laws > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:46 PM > > Subject: [BLML] Law 81C again > > > > > > > Dealer West > > > E/W vulnerable > > > > > > West North East South > > > 1S 2H 3S pass > > > 4H pass pass pass > > > > > > When East noticed his mistake he called the TD and explained that he had > > > misbid. ( 4H by E/W would likely result in down 4. N/S score +400 ) > > > > > > However the TD allowed him to change. > > > > > > 4 S 5H > > > double pass pass pass > > > > > > Result: N/S 5Hx down 5. N/S score -1100 > > > > > > In the meantime the TD discovered his error and informed the players > after > > > play ends. > > > > > > What will be the decision of the TD? > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 04:27:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEHQv406208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:26:57 +1100 (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 fAEHQpH06204 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:26:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0107.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.134.107] helo=c1r5i8) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1643i9-0007Jt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:20:29 -0800 Message-ID: <00c701c16d30$8b4fb8c0$6b86b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:19:38 -0800 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, Good, and very real, problem. I recall having faced that very problem which you describe (Partner's explanation was technically inaccurate as to system, describing only one of my possible hands for my bid -- but it happened to match my actual hand, on this occasion. on at least several occasions over the years. In every instance, I have chosen to do as you did here, (i.e., _not_ to correct partner's explanation, for fear that it might indeed cause damage to the opponents, planting in their minds that I was likely to hold some other hand than I actually did.) on the overwhelming conviction that I was serving the opponents' best interest. After the hand had completed, (so as not to mislead opponents for the future and to forestall a repeat by partner) I said something like the following: "For future reference, it's _my_ understanding of our system that I _might have held_ a different hand (good raise of Clubs, to fit your example here)". Fortunately, partner's (subset) explanation described my actual hand in this case." Partner invariably responded something like: "You're right. Sorry about that. I'll get it _completely_ right next time." On no occasion did opponents object, for our good intentions (to not mislead them) seemed obvious. On those occasions, I was (fortunately) not burdened with a keen BLML awareness that I might _not_ be able to find justification for my well intended actions in the FLB. As Alain asked, does anyone find anything in The Laws to support the position that we took? I have not yet scoured every Laws passage to find the golden phrase (if one exists) that we had all been missing (or misinterpreting) -- as justification. Thoughts, DWS?? BTW, I confess that I was not always on this side of this problem. On a few occasions, partner fielded _my_ mis-explanation and did as I described above. No complaints, ever. I agree with Alain's suggested Laws modification (jurisprudence rule). Tom Wood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Subject: [BLML] dWS info correction > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a case that I feel closely related to dWS principles. I know I > didn't do what the Rules demanded, but I still feel it was the right way to > act, and I wonder whether somebody could find justifications for it. > NB : if nobody can, then perhaps it is time to switch to dW principles, > because it *really* helped to avoid any problem. > > My hand is : Q9xxx > A10x > xx > Kxx > > The bidding : 1D 1NT* p > 2D** 3D 3S X > p p p > > * 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, normal values for an O/C at prevailing vulnerability. > ** on our CC and in my mind : general force (unassuming cue) > explained by partner as : constructive spade raise (which it would have > been had RHO done something else than pass) > > As you can see, partner's explanation just happens to match my hand. > > Laws clearly state that before the lead, I must correct partner's > explanation and somebody will then call the Director. > But partner's description has given them more, not less nor different, > information. And they know on which basis my partner decided to bid. > So I decided not to correct anything, because I felt they weren't at any > disadvantage after the wrong explanation. To the contrary, if I corrected > the information, two things could have happened : > a) they could have made a strange lead based on the presumption that we had > no fit > b) they could have complained that my correction misled them : "it is plain > to see that the explanation was correct ; why did he pretend otherwise ?" > > Logic dictates that I don't pip a word (well, at least my logic). The Rules > say otherwise. Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly here. I'd > suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : > "when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of the > set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the hand > happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" > > What's 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 Thu Nov 15 04:56:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEHthV06227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:55:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEHtWH06223 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:55:37 +1100 (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 fAEHn7n14670; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:08 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAEHn7N20810; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:07 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:07 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 RAA07653; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:06 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA00843; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:06 GMT Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:06 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111141749.RAA00843@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, tomwood1@earthlink.net Subject: correcting partner's "subset" explanation; was Re: [BLML] dWS info correction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Thomas Wood" > Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:19:38 -0800 > > Alain, > > Good, and very real, problem. > > I recall having faced that very problem which you describe > (Partner's explanation was technically inaccurate as to system, > describing only one of my possible hands for my bid -- but it > happened to match my actual hand, on this occasion. > on at least several occasions over the years. > In every instance, I have chosen to do as you did here, > (i.e., _not_ to correct partner's explanation, for fear that it might > indeed cause damage to the opponents, planting in their minds > that I was likely to hold some other hand than I actually did.) > on the overwhelming conviction that I was serving the opponents' > best interest. > After the hand had completed, (so as not to mislead opponents > for the future and to forestall a repeat by partner) I said something > like the following: > "For future reference, it's _my_ understanding of our system that > I _might have held_ a different hand (good raise of Clubs, to fit > your example here)". Fortunately, partner's (subset) explanation > described my actual hand in this case." > Partner invariably responded something like: "You're right. Sorry > about that. I'll get it _completely_ right next time." > On no occasion did opponents object, for our good intentions > (to not mislead them) seemed obvious. > > On those occasions, I was (fortunately) not burdened with a keen > BLML awareness that I might _not_ be able to find justification > for my well intended actions in the FLB. As Alain asked, does > anyone find anything in The Laws to support the position that > we took? I have not yet scoured every Laws passage to find the > golden phrase (if one exists) that we had all been missing (or > misinterpreting) -- as justification. Thoughts, DWS?? I am sure that correcting is legal even if not actively ethical. I (dimmly) remember a German woman player correcting partner's explanation of a 1NT rebid, she corrected the explanation to a wider range although her hand fell in the range explained by partner. e.g. partner explained "15-17", the correction was "13-17", and the player had 16. The corrected explanation could be confirmed from system notes. Opponents might even have complained that they were misled by the correction (assuming the player had 13/14 in the example), but the TD/AC confirmed that the player's action was correct. Myself, I would normally correct partner's explanation but add that my hand does conform to partner's explanation. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 05:28:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEISQP06250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:28:26 +1100 (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 fAEISJH06246 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:28:20 +1100 (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 SAA29617 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:21:51 GMT Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]_dWS_info_correction?= 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, 14 Nov 2001 19:22:00 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 14.11.2001 18:21:51 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 fAEISMH06247 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Thomas Wood" t> cc : Envoyé par : Objet : Re: [BLML] dWS info correction owner-bridge-laws@rgb. anu.edu.au 14/11/01 18:19 Veuillez répondre à "Thomas Wood" Alain, Good, and very real, problem. I recall having faced that very problem which you describe (Partner's explanation was technically inaccurate as to system, describing only one of my possible hands for my bid -- but it happened to match my actual hand, on this occasion. on at least several occasions over the years. In every instance, I have chosen to do as you did here, (i.e., _not_ to correct partner's explanation, for fear that it might indeed cause damage to the opponents, planting in their minds that I was likely to hold some other hand than I actually did.) on the overwhelming conviction that I was serving the opponents' best interest. After the hand had completed, (so as not to mislead opponents for the future and to forestall a repeat by partner) I said something like the following: "For future reference, it's _my_ understanding of our system that I _might have held_ a different hand (good raise of Clubs, to fit your example here)". Fortunately, partner's (subset) explanation described my actual hand in this case." Partner invariably responded something like: "You're right. Sorry about that. I'll get it _completely_ right next time." On no occasion did opponents object, for our good intentions (to not mislead them) seemed obvious. On those occasions, I was (fortunately) not burdened with a keen BLML awareness that I might _not_ be able to find justification for my well intended actions in the FLB. As Alain asked, does anyone find anything in The Laws to support the position that we took? I have not yet scoured every Laws passage to find the golden phrase (if one exists) that we had all been missing (or misinterpreting) -- as justification. Thoughts, DWS?? BTW, I confess that I was not always on this side of this problem. On a few occasions, partner fielded _my_ mis-explanation and did as I described above. No complaints, ever. I agree with Alain's suggested Laws modification (jurisprudence rule). Tom Wood *** on another side, when you do correct the explanation to add a subset of possible hands, opponents will now be quite sure the hand belongs to the omitted subset and not to the initial subset, and they will be given an unfair advantage with information they were not untitled to know, especially when the added subset will be very narrow. jp rocafort *** > Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly here. I'd > suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : > "when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of the > set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the hand > happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" > > What's your opinion ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 06:20:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEJJWd06281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEJJQH06277 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:19:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-239-103.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.239.103] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fAEJD6P24384 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:13:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:16:50 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > I've decided to start a new thread. > > I'll start by stating the case I'll want to address. > > > > > KJTxxx > > > > xx > > > > x > > > > xxxx > > > > > > > > xxx A > > > > AKJxx Qxxx > > > > AKxx Qx > > > > x AKxxxx > > > > > > > > Qx > > > > xx > > > > JTxxxx > > > > QTx > > > > > > > > Dealer South opened 2 diamonds and > > > > that was alerted and described as Mexican > > > > (18-19 balanced, convention cards agreed). > > > > West passed and North bid 4 > > > > Hearts! > > I think it does not matter, but since the one case poses no > problems, we consider the case where South is correct and > 2Di is indeed weak with diamonds. > Under the system as North describes it (which is what they > played previously, I guess), 4He shows a preference for > Spades. Assume that 2D 'mexican' is what N plays with the hog, and that S does not know 2D 'mexican' at all ;-). > South tells you this story and he asks what he should do. > > Your first answer is of course : bid as if you had not heard > partner's explanation. In this case that means : Pass. > > We all agree on this. We also agree that this is the > correct action regardless of the true meaning of 2Di. Yes, there is no disagreement on this. > Next South asks us how he should alert/non-alert/explain > 4He. > > Now according to the Majority school, the answer should be : > "if you are certain that you have made a misbid, you should > explain this as a transfer, for that is what it is in your > system; > if OTOH you are certain that you have the system correct, > then you should explain it as a natural bid, because that is > what it is in your system; > if you are uncertain of your system, you should explain ... > (please Davids, fill in, I have no idea what you want this > player to explain)" > > According to the De Wael School, the answer should be : > "You should do your best not to inform partner that he has > not correctly interpreted your 2Di bid, and you should > therefor explain the bid as a transfer." > > Now for one moment I do not want to argue that this second > answer is the only correct one under the Laws. I happen to > believe that it is, but I know I won't convince you of that. > > First of all I want you to admit that this second reply will > be far easier to give to a simple player. "bid according to > your own idea of system, explain according to partner's" is > a very simple answer, easy to give and easy to understand > and to apply. I hope you will not think that this is > untrue. I disagree here. How can S possibly know what is going on in N's mind when N invents his own system on the spot? N's explanation possibly might be "what they played before". But it might also be "what N expects because he has read about it in a book". Or N's agreements with a different player. > Secondly I want you to look at the reply in detail. Is it > against the Laws ? You all keep saying that the opponents > are entitled to the correct explanation, according to the > system. And you'd be right. The opponents are entitled to > that. But what use have they for it ? What use do opponents have for it, if you have six diamonds, alert 4 hearts as transfer to spades, and then pass 4H? > When the opponents get answered "he has hearts" or "he's > showing hearts", when in fact he is showing spades, and > probably has spades, that is a misinformation. Now we all > know what to do in that case. We should be looking for > evidence that the explanation is correct, or else assume > that it is wrong. > > And even if we find some evidence suggesting that indeed 2Di > is natural, and 4He therefor as well, then still we would be > right in ruling : ""apparently, the true explanation is > "over 2Di natural, natural, but over 2Di Mexican, transfer > to spades". So there has been insufficient information, so > we rule MI.". > > Don't say that such a ruling would be impossible. A player > bids hearts showing spades, his partner knows this, but uses > some systemic back door to explain it as hearts and expects > to get away with it. > > Contrast this with the ruling if South explains it as > spades. Technically that is a wrong explanation. But in > reality, it conforms to the hand North actually has. So > even if EW claim MI, they certainly can't claim any > resulting damage. EW have MI about S's hand. This MI might possibly get resolved by S's correct explanations of N's bids. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 06:33:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEJX5h06294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:33:05 +1100 (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 fAEJWxH06290 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:33:00 +1100 (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 fAEJQcB23825; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:26:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003801c16d42$2d814440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blML" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:25:46 -0800 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" > > Here is a case that I feel closely related to dWS principles. I know I > didn't do what the Rules demanded, but I still feel it was the right way to > act, and I wonder whether somebody could find justifications for it. > NB : if nobody can, then perhaps it is time to switch to dW principles, > because it *really* helped to avoid any problem. > > My hand is : Q9xxx > A10x > xx > Kxx > > The bidding : 1D 1NT* p > 2D** 3D 3S X > p p p > > * 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, normal values for an O/C at prevailing vulnerability. > ** on our CC and in my mind : general force (unassuming cue) > explained by partner as : constructive spade raise (which it would have > been had RHO done something else than pass) > > As you can see, partner's explanation just happens to match my hand. > > Laws clearly state that before the lead, I must correct partner's > explanation and somebody will then call the Director. I believe the correct procedure is: (1) State that there was MI (calling attention to an infraction), then (2) call the TD (required by L9B1(a) at this time), and (3) let the TD tell you to correct the explanation. > But partner's description has given them more, not less nor different, > information. And they know on which basis my partner decided to bid. > So I decided not to correct anything, because I felt they weren't at any > disadvantage after the wrong explanation. To the contrary, if I corrected > the information, two things could have happened : > a) they could have made a strange lead based on the presumption that we had > no fit > b) they could have complained that my correction misled them : "it is plain > to see that the explanation was correct ; why did he pretend otherwise ?" > > Logic dictates that I don't pip a word (well, at least my logic). The Rules > say otherwise. Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly here. I'd > suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : > "when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of the > set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the hand > happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" > The WBFLC addressed this matter in Lille (Minute #15): A declarer or dummy who corrects his partner's explanation at the end of the auction must explain his partnership agreement. If his hand does not conform to the corrected explanation he must be especially careful to ensure that he is right in his understanding of his partnership agreements. Whilst no obligation exists, he is free to be helpful to opponents with complete gratuitous information as to fact concerning his action (but not where such action is purposeful - e.g., psychic). Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (AT Las Vegas NABC Nov 18-25) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 07:16:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEKFjW09526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:15:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEKFdH09515 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:15:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0107.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.134.107] helo=c1r5i8) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1646LV-0004Vj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:09:17 -0800 Message-ID: <010001c16d48$207cb080$6b86b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: Réf. : Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:08:27 -0800 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 >> Tom Wood wrote -- >> >> Alain, >> >> Good, and very real, problem. >> >> I recall having faced that very problem which you describe >> (Partner's explanation was technically inaccurate as to system, >> describing only one of my possible hands for my bid -- but it >> happened to match my actual hand, on this occasion. >> on at least several occasions over the years. >> In every instance, I have chosen to do as you did here, >> (i.e., _not_ to correct partner's explanation, for fear that it might >> indeed cause damage to the opponents, planting in their minds >> that I was likely to hold some other hand than I actually did.) >> on the overwhelming conviction that I was serving the opponents' >> best interest. >> After the hand had completed, (so as not to mislead opponents >> for the future and to forestall a repeat by partner) I said something >> like the following: >> "For future reference, it's _my_ understanding of our system that >> I _might have held_ a different hand (good raise of Clubs, to fit >> your example here)". Fortunately, partner's (subset) explanation >> described my actual hand in this case." >> Partner invariably responded something like: "You're right. Sorry >> about that. I'll get it _completely_ right next time." >> On no occasion did opponents object, for our good intentions >> (to not mislead them) seemed obvious. >> >> On those occasions, I was (fortunately) not burdened with a keen >> BLML awareness that I might _not_ be able to find justification >> for my well intended actions in the FLB. As Alain asked, does >> anyone find anything in The Laws to support the position that >> we took? I have not yet scoured every Laws passage to find the >> golden phrase (if one exists) that we had all been missing (or >> misinterpreting) -- as justification. Thoughts, DWS?? >> >> BTW, I confess that I was not always on this side of this problem. >> On a few occasions, partner fielded _my_ mis-explanation and >> did as I described above. No complaints, ever. >> >> I agree with Alain's suggested Laws modification (jurisprudence >> rule). >> >> Tom Wood > > jp rocafort responded -- > on another side, when you do correct the explanation to add a subset of > possible hands, opponents will now be quite sure the hand belongs to the > omitted subset and not to the initial subset, and they will be given an > unfair advantage with information they were not untitled to know, > especially when the added subset will be very narrow. > > jp rocafort > *** > Jean-Pierre, I'm guessing that you are addressing a hypothetical case where, whether under current Laws or revised, a pair systematically takes one of two different actions in these cases (known by the opponents): 1) do _not_ correct the explanation if Partner's defective explanation covers the actual hand held 2) correct the explanation, otherwise [Thus, corrected explanation = "In this case, I have the *other* type of hand."] Of course, this approach seems untenable. I suppose that one could adopt the strategy of _always_ giving the corrected explanation (at the earliest legal opportunity, of course) -- followed by a disclaimer that such corrections are _always_ made, whether the actual hand is as originally explained or not. [Clarification of initial post. I agree with the intent of Alain's 'jurisprudence rule'. The devil would be in the details of a Laws mod.] Decidedly tedious, but fortunately these cases happen rarely for partnerships who have carefully sorted out their agreements and who think twice when offering auction explanations. Because Partner and I play a complicated extra-galactic system (10-37HCP artificial /forcing 1C, 8-point 1H/1S, 10-12NT, Multi-2D etc.) eliciting off-the-wall "Polish Club??" ACBL-opponent reactions and lengthy explanations, we often are short of time in rounds. Therefore, I cherish the current situation, where we only occasionally feel the need to offer a corrected explanation mid-hand. This approach also tends to preserve the chance to "just play bridge" and get a normal result. Notice to Adam, Marvin, and any other SoCal players -- Now that I have divulged our dirty active-ethics secret, against you guys, I'll probably always give a corrected explanation, with disclaimer added for Adam. Protecting field equity, of course. ;-) 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 Thu Nov 15 07:48:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEKmCD15186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:48:12 +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 fAEKm6H15169 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:48:06 +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 fAEKfkw03016 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:41:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000e01c16d4c$ae9dbe00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111141749.RAA00843@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: correcting partner's "subset" explanation; was Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:39:53 -0800 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" > > I (dimmly) remember a German woman player correcting partner's > explanation of a 1NT rebid, she corrected the explanation to a wider > range although her hand fell in the range explained by partner. e.g. > partner explained "15-17", the correction was "13-17", and the player > had 16. The corrected explanation could be confirmed from system > notes. > > Opponents might even have complained that they were misled by the > correction (assuming the player had 13/14 in the example), but the > TD/AC confirmed that the player's action was correct. > > > Myself, I would normally correct partner's explanation but add that > my hand does conform to partner's explanation. > There was also the case of Karen McCallum vs Garozzo in an NABC a few years ago. Her partner explained Karen's 3H bid as showing five hearts, I believe, but Karen corrected that before the opening lead to say it might be five hearts but also might be just showing hearts stopped. That's all she said. Garazzo didn't care for this explanation after leading a heart (as I remember) and finding that Karen indeed had five hearts. Something like that. There was a big to-do about the matter among the NABC attendees, but... The AC affirmed that she had no obligation to tell Garozzo that the incorrect (because incomplete) explanation matched her hand. She might have been given a hard time by the AC if she couldn't prove her partnership agreement, but she had system notes that backed it up. (Moral: Always take system notes to NABCs). We discussed this on BLML at the time. My opinion was that if one's system contains elements that are somewhat ambiguous (e.g., a bid showing stopper or length), such ambiguity can sometimes help and sometimes hurt. The help may come in the form of an opposing misguess as to what the bidder actually holds. I don't consider that good ethics requires a player to throw away the possibility of that help, perhaps considered a virtue of one's system, just because partner has misdescribed the partnership agreement. The WBFLC said it's okay to give such gratuitous aid to the opponents, as some would do, but that's pure generosity, not an ethical matter. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Las Vegas NABC Nov 17-25) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 07:51:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEKpAP15766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:51:10 +1100 (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 fAEKp5H15749 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:51:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0107.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.134.107] helo=c1r5i8) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1646tn-0004U0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:44:44 -0800 Message-ID: <010701c16d4d$13c6f580$6b86b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003801c16d42$2d814440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] correcting partner's "subset" explanation; was Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:43:54 -0800 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 Although Marv's observations seem technically correct, [L9B1=Call Director when attention called to irregularity] [Let the TD tell you to correct the explanation.] a hard fact of ACBL life is that often no TD can be found within the playing room (even in massive Las Vegas-style ballrooms) at ACBL NABCs and Regionals. Thus, our DIY approach is often by 'Hobson's choice'. Marv also offers what seems to be a WBFLC quote (Lille, Minute#15) re this matter. Am I the only one who regularly finds these LC guidelines fairly clear on quick read, but, on re-read, raising as many questions as they answer? [See Marv's quote below, last sentence: "Whilst no obligation . . ."] Tom Wood From: "Marvin L. French" > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > > Here is a case that I feel closely related to dWS principles. I know I > > didn't do what the Rules demanded, but I still feel it was the right way > to > > act, and I wonder whether somebody could find justifications for it. > > NB : if nobody can, then perhaps it is time to switch to dW principles, > > because it *really* helped to avoid any problem. > > > > My hand is : Q9xxx > > A10x > > xx > > Kxx > > > > The bidding : 1D 1NT* p > > 2D** 3D 3S X > > p p p > > > > * 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, normal values for an O/C at prevailing > vulnerability. > > ** on our CC and in my mind : general force (unassuming cue) > > explained by partner as : constructive spade raise (which it would > have > > been had RHO done something else than pass) > > > > As you can see, partner's explanation just happens to match my hand. > > > > Laws clearly state that before the lead, I must correct partner's > > explanation and somebody will then call the Director. > > I believe the correct procedure is: (1) State that there was MI (calling > attention to an infraction), then (2) call the TD (required by L9B1(a) at > this time), and (3) let the TD tell you to correct the explanation. > > > But partner's description has given them more, not less nor different, > > information. And they know on which basis my partner decided to bid. > > So I decided not to correct anything, because I felt they weren't at any > > disadvantage after the wrong explanation. To the contrary, if I corrected > > the information, two things could have happened : > > a) they could have made a strange lead based on the presumption that we > had > > no fit > > b) they could have complained that my correction misled them : "it is > plain > > to see that the explanation was correct ; why did he pretend otherwise ?" > > > > Logic dictates that I don't pip a word (well, at least my logic). The > Rules > > say otherwise. Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly here. I'd > > suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : > > "when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of the > > set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the hand > > happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" > > > The WBFLC addressed this matter in Lille (Minute #15): > > A declarer or dummy who corrects his partner's explanation at the end of the > auction must explain his partnership agreement. If his hand does not conform > to the corrected explanation he must be especially careful to ensure that he > is right in his understanding of his partnership agreements. Whilst no > obligation exists, he is free to be helpful to opponents with complete > gratuitous information as to fact concerning his action (but not where such > action is purposeful - e.g., psychic). > > 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 Nov 15 08:11:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELB7g19102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:11:07 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAELB0H19084 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:11:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-67-206.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.67.206] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1647Cy-000KDi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:04:34 +0000 Message-ID: <007801c16d50$0f91a8e0$564d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:03:58 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > I have never believed this rubbish. When > my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have > no agreement, I assume he has reasonable > length in the suit. > > There are various possible meanings for 3S > over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one >for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. > +=+ What is this about 'no agreement'; East believes she has an agreement; it is just not what West says it is, but she is not allowed to be pulled out of her dream by the UI. She has to interpret 3S on the basis of the agreement that was in her mind when she bid on the previous round. ~ 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 Nov 15 08:26:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELQUf22250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:26:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAELQOH22238 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:26:24 +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 fAELJbh25214; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:19:37 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3BF1238F.F8081544@village.uunet.be> References: <3BF1238F.F8081544@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:15:18 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or >irrational is not only dependent on the class of player >involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the >cards ? Why must we find this notion in the Laws at all? Clearly what lines of play are irrational depend on the lie of the cards. If the player understands that the lie of the cards is as your second player understood them, then evaluation of what is rational or irrational for him must be made in the context of that understanding *even if it's wrong*. Or so it seems to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, 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/AwUBO/LgB72UW3au93vOEQKM/wCgqgJiBM5jKE6D4zxSHALXuAojVm0AoMAC S+2sPKHVd0FfIjkESs0aMrJp =JsWv -----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 Nov 15 08:36:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELZxk23725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:35:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAELZrH23715 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:35:54 +1100 (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 fAELTVm10308 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:29:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d801c16c5d$32c64ee0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <000b01c16b8f$6a2b4300$578ce23f@oemcomputer> <3BF002CC.69D12ABB@mindspring.com> <3BF1026D.71A04E9A@village.uunet.be> <00d801c16c5d$32c64ee0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:20:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar to San Diego #2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:06 PM +0100 11/13/01, Rik Terveen wrote: >There already are enough players who flare up in difficult cases (UI >cases are always difficult for those who don't fully understand the >Laws). Perhaps there would be fewer flare ups if TDs could (and would) adequately explain the Laws. (Most TDs around here come to the table without a lawbook, and make rulings without consulting any references or any other people, and without stating under what law(s) they are ruling. 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/AwUBO/LiQr2UW3au93vOEQItIwCgimjGJoKJDIVAxhNkrY2W5y4tSF0AoMeN r5Si344+YjgqBHQyXkFPnK4A =223d -----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 Nov 15 08:39:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELdgH24170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:39:42 +1100 (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 (f56.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAELdaH24158 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:39:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:33:11 -0800 Received: from 172.149.158.8 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:33:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.149.158.8] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:33:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 21:33:11.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[F59488F0:01C16D53] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > > I have never believed this rubbish. When > > my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have > > no agreement, I assume he has reasonable > > length in the suit. > > > > There are various possible meanings for 3S > > over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one > >for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. > > >+=+ What is this about 'no agreement'; East >believes she has an agreement; it is just not what >West says it is, but she is not allowed to be >pulled out of her dream by the UI. She has to >interpret 3S on the basis of the agreement >that was in her mind when she bid on the >previous round. ~ G ~ +=+ She believes she has an agreement that 2D was a weak-2 bid probably, but she may not have any agreement on what what 3S means. How is she supposed to interpret 3S if she has never defined that bid in any partnership? I'm still curious to know why 4S and 6D are being considered LAs, more so the latter. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 08:46:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELkEn25097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:46:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAELk6H25084 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:46:06 +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 fAELddh20789; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:39:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111140306.WAA14664@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:35:04 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:38 AM +0000 11/14/01, David Stevenson wrote: > Yes, but it is not true. You can condone an action violating the >obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. I don't understand this. Under what law will the TD not allow it? 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/AwUBO/LkpL2UW3au93vOEQJkQQCg3GdbOa1VcbNK14+2Fj+Uf/UpqCIAmgIW kFUA1BTo2IMB2kKAEbb4Rq4C =TW6c -----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 Nov 15 08:46:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAELk8m25087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:46:08 +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 fAELk1H25068 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:46:01 +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 fAELdYh20697; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:39:34 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111140306.WAA14664@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200111140306.WAA14664@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:30:42 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:06 PM -0500 11/13/01, Steve Willner wrote: >No FLB at hand, but isn't there something (perhaps around L9) that says >a player doesn't lose rights by summoning the TD? Yes. 9B1(c). 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/AwUBO/LkoL2UW3au93vOEQKmkwCg41uGjSi2/uUMHmuebxjh7ed2R10AnRq+ f2Kpunh6xAgTGmlUljcrrSun =Cx3r -----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 Nov 15 09:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEM61i27977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:06:02 +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 fAEM5tH27955 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:05:55 +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 fAELxSh12752; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:59:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:12 -0500 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Cc: blML Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:54 PM +0100 11/14/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Here is a case that I feel closely related to dWS principles. I know >I didn't do what the Rules demanded, but I still feel it was the >right way to act, and I wonder whether somebody could find >justifications for it. >NB : if nobody can, then perhaps it is time to switch to dW >principles, because it *really* helped to avoid any problem. I haven't read your case, yet, because I almost posted much the same answer I'm about to post to your previous message. It is this: it appears that the dWS advocates ignoring what the law says in favor of expedience. IMO, that's the wrong approach, however much it helps to avoid problems. 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/AwUBO/LpSr2UW3au93vOEQIjvQCggYFtl79wUiP55fbYxNuX/B/Kh38AoMZC ALqnzmqlzd2WDv12D3m9Zzx0 =JOPO -----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 Nov 15 09:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEM5un27957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:05:56 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEM5nH27935 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:05:50 +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 fAELxPh12678; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:59:25 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:50:13 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:34 PM +0100 11/14/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >According to the De Wael School, the answer should be : >"You should do your best not to inform partner that he has >not correctly interpreted your 2Di bid, and you should >therefor explain the bid as a transfer." > >Now for one moment I do not want to argue that this second >answer is the only correct one under the Laws. I happen to >believe that it is, but I know I won't convince you of that. Hm. If I understand this scenario, South has UI that North thinks 2D is Mexican. So he knows, *from UI* that 4H is probably a transfer. If he then explains it as a transfer, in an attempt to avoid giving UI to North, has he not violated 73C and/or 73F2? If not, why not? What of the player who has no clue what 4H means (whether or not he should have one)? 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/AwUBO/LpRr2UW3au93vOEQJGHQCbBECG3sayK3hYKTteN61LngKJeAYAoKCY hZ6gYM856aK05eW1tXCnjybm =w3wR -----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 Nov 15 09:16:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEMGhF29347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:16:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEMGbH29334 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:16:38 +1100 (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 fAEM9cm02324; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:09:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011114102314.00a1d7b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011114102314.00a1d7b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:05:43 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > OTOH, what will you tell Team B or Team C if they >are eliminated because the TD made an error at their table >that prevented them from having a chance to get a good score? >The number of cases where one pair, at the table, has been >cheated out of a chance to qualify is far larger than the >number of cases where someone else loses out because >_both_ pairs got good results. > Achieve justice at the table first, and if in some >rare cases that causes others to lose out in "impossible" >ways so be it. Tell pair A to blame the TD, not the laws. >As long as I'm not the TD.... :) This is not an easy problem, and it may not be soluble completely within the laws. Which would indicate that either the Laws need changing, or conditions of contest need to deal with this possibility. It seems fair to me that the outcome of this problem with the B/C match should determine who plays against Team A in the final, *not* whether Team A gets knocked out all together. If the sponsors of this tournament haven't allowed for the possibility of this occurring, and there's no way within the laws to make it fair, then so be it, but... I'm not at the level at which I might play in a Bridge Olympiad any time soon, and I don't know how those who are feel about it, but I have to say that if I were on Team A in this case, I would *never* play in a Bridge Olympiad again. Not without an assurance that this could not possibly happen again, and a public apology from the sponsors of the event for having screwed it up. And maybe not even 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/AwUBO/Lrq72UW3au93vOEQJTuACfb9aqHrofTgOdnUgqIHtJ8TtDHNYAnRYp i88MHeIzi5kjelfyj1NzPGtW =YL5M -----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 Nov 15 09:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEMIlD29584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:18:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAEMIfH29574 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:18:42 +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 OAA13999; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:12:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200111142212.OAA13999@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:35:04 EST." Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:12:13 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 11:38 AM +0000 11/14/01, David Stevenson wrote: > > Yes, but it is not true. You can condone an action violating the > >obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. > > I don't understand this. Under what law will the TD not allow it? Making a non-pass call when required to pass is an inadmissible call. There's no option under the Laws to condone an inadmissible call. By contrast, there are options to condone a call out of rotation or an insufficient bid (see 27A, 29A). Since those Laws explicitly give you this option, you cannot forfeit it by calling the TD. 35B is an exceptional case among the inadmissible calls. In any other case, if RHO makes an inadmissible call and you "condone" it by calling, RHO's call and your call are still cancelled, because those calls cannot sensibly stand (doubling or redoubling your partner, bidding more than 7, or calling after the auction has closed). So perhaps it might have made sense to say, somewhere in the Laws, that if your RHO makes a call in violation of the obligation to pass, you have the option to condone it by calling. However, that's not in the Laws. I think that's the explanation for David's statement. Did I get it right? Side note: When looking into this, I noticed something that I suspect has been discussed before on BLML, a long time ago. Suppose the auction goes: South West North East 1S pass 2S pass pass pass pass 1H North's last pass is after the final pass of the auction. According to L35D, that pass AND ALL SUBSEQUENT CALLS are cancelled without penalty---meaning there's no penalty for the 1H call. I'm assuming that this means: (1) there can be no lead penalties on West, but (2) the 1H call is still UI to West, probably by L16C2; I'm assuming that the 1H call is an offense since it follows the last pass of the auction, and that the cancellation mandated by L35D makes it a "withdrawn call" for the purpose of L16C2. Is that right? -- 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 Nov 15 09:26:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEMPsC29927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:25:54 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEMPmH29923 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:25:49 +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 fAEMJOh08186 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:19:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : Re: [BLML] dWS info correction Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:22 PM +0100 11/14/01, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: >on another side, when you do correct the explanation to add a subset of >possible hands, opponents will now be quite sure the hand belongs to the >omitted subset and not to the initial subset, and they will be given an >unfair advantage with information they were not untitled to know, >especially when the added subset will be very narrow. Eh? Oh. You mean, the information they were not entitled to know is that the bidder's hand conforms to his partner's original explanation? I suppose that's true, but I don't think there's anything in the Laws that precludes bidder telling them (a problem may arise because he's also told his partner, though). 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/AwUBO/Lt9b2UW3au93vOEQIjfQCfVPb8T86nwufUkbjIeAalHSGOqNEAnj+C wkLS3iLlqlUsgZqH7GRgoC81 =9l6p -----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 Nov 15 10:09:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAEN8qK04153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:08:52 +1100 (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 fAEN8iH04137 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:08:45 +1100 (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 fAEN2Ld81309 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:02:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@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, 14 Nov 2001 18:03:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 In-Reply-To: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@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 09:34 AM 11/14/01, Herman wrote: >I think it does not matter, but since the one case poses no >problems, we consider the case where South is correct and >2Di is indeed weak with diamonds. >Under the system as North describes it (which is what they >played previously, I guess), 4He shows a preference for >Spades. > >South tells you this story and he asks what he should do. > >Your first answer is of course : bid as if you had not heard >partner's explanation. In this case that means : Pass. My answer is: proceed as if you had not heard partner's explanation. In this case that means: pass, and if asked what partner's bid means, explain it as natural (just as you would have perforce if you had not heard partner's explanation). Your actions (both your call and your explanation) will thus be the same whether or not there has been an alert, whether or not the opponents have asked about the meaning of your call, or whether or not you are playing behind screens. >We all agree on this. We also agree that this is the >correct action regardless of the true meaning of 2Di. > >Next South asks us how he should alert/non-alert/explain >4He. > >Now according to the Majority school, the answer should be : >"if you are certain that you have made a misbid, you should >explain this as a transfer, for that is what it is in your >system; >if OTOH you are certain that you have the system correct, >then you should explain it as a natural bid, because that is >what it is in your system; >if you are uncertain of your system, you should explain ... >(please Davids, fill in, I have no idea what you want this >player to explain)" I don't think so. I think the majority would say that you should explain in a manner consistent with your own bidding in all cases. If you and your partner disagree as to what your methods are, let the TD (or AC) worry about who misbid and who misexplained. Don't try to use the UI your partner has given you (and that's assuming he's been kind enough to do so) to figure it out. >According to the De Wael School, the answer should be : >"You should do your best not to inform partner that he has >not correctly interpreted your 2Di bid, and you should >therefor explain the bid as a transfer." > >Now for one moment I do not want to argue that this second >answer is the only correct one under the Laws. I happen to >believe that it is, but I know I won't convince you of that. > >First of all I want you to admit that this second reply will >be far easier to give to a simple player. "bid according to >your own idea of system, explain according to partner's" is >a very simple answer, easy to give and easy to understand >and to apply. I hope you will not think that this is >untrue. Easy if you can read your partner's mind -- or if he happens to have been asked for an explanation. Otherwise impossible. According to the De Wael School, you will commit an infraction any time you are asked for an explanation about which you and your partner disagree, unless he happens to have fortuitously offered a full explanation of your own prior bidding, and you're not using screens. >You are saying that this player, by alerting, has told his >opponents that the 4He bid, systemically, means spades, >while in truth it systemically means hearts (that's meaning >3 from above). You are saying that is misinformation. >Well, I'm countering that by saying that this player, by >alerting, has told his opponents that the 4He bid shows >spades (that's meaning 2 from above). This player has not >lied to his opponents. The call was truely intended to show >spades. That's what he told them. I am saying that this is >not misinformation. >The bid shows spades, the bidder intends it to show spades, >the explainer explains it as showing spades. How can that be >misinformation? You know (from UI) that partner has spades, but you pass 4H. If you explain that partner has hearts, you have misinformed the opponents as to partner's holding. But if you explain that partner has spades, and then pass, are they not entitled to assume that *you* have hearts? -- you are not, I believe we all agree, required to inform them that you know you are in the midst of a bidding misunderstanding (in this particular case, it may be obvious to them, but in general it won't be). So, as a practical matter, you are misinforming them either way. As a legal matter, one of you has misinformed them while the other one has misbid, so they have misinformation in any case. But you generally won't know who has done which. It is better and easier, both for you at the table, and for the TD/AC sorting it out after the fact, if you to give an explanation which is consistent with your own holding rather than one you hope will be consistent with your partner's -- if only because you can give the former correctly in every 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 Nov 15 11:40:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF0e3213631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:40:03 +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 fAF0dwH13627 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:39:58 +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 fAF0Xbw16322 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:33:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003601c16d6d$11962540$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:32:50 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > I'm still curious to know why 4S and 6D are being considered LAs, more > so the latter. > Don't understand why you would question the former. Bridge World Standard 2001 has the sensible agreement that when a bid is undiscussed the first inclination should be to treat it as natural. If 3S shows spades, 4S is an LA. The latter is what Danny Kleinman says is the right bid opposite what sounds like a splinter response (one level above a forcing response) to a weak two. Holding an AKQxxx suit and outside queen, slam should be cold. Then, says Danny, partner (who is assuming a 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4 hand with four spades) should take that to be a super-splinter (void) with a maximum and bid 7S! Neither action is clear-cut enough to be considered an LA for adjudication purposes, and Danny probably had tongue-in-cheek when suggest9ing them. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Las Vegas NABC Nov 17-25) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 12:10:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF1AUj16141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:10:31 +1100 (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 fAF1AOH16130 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:10:25 +1100 (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 UAA07183 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA21517 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:04:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:04:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111150104.UAA21517@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > You can condone an action violating the > obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. Why would the TD not allow it? Wouldn't that ruling violate L9B1c? (Thanks, Adam.) I've always (well, always since 9B1c was added) assumed the TD should offer the next player the option of accepting the illegal non-pass. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 12:13:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF1DUV16769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:13:31 +1100 (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 fAF1DPH16751 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:13:25 +1100 (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 UAA07310 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA21553 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:07:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:07:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111150107.UAA21553@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) > I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results out > of the comparison for the other pairs. Why? I've always expected that an _assigned_ adjusted score should be treated identically to a real score. Yes, in extreme cases you can produce odd results, but nothing else is any fairer. Any different rule just produces a different, arguably unfair, 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 Nov 15 13:22:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF2LaL22704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:21:36 +1100 (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 fAF2LUH22700 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:21:31 +1100 (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 fAF2F7C09506 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:15:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114210414.00b0a1f0@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, 14 Nov 2001 21:15:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@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 10:54 AM 11/14/01, Alain wrote: > My hand is : Q9xxx > A10x > xx > Kxx > >The bidding : 1D 1NT* p > 2D** 3D 3S X > p p p > >* 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, normal values for an O/C at prevailing >vulnerability. >** on our CC and in my mind : general force (unassuming cue) > explained by partner as : constructive spade raise (which it would > have been had RHO done something else than pass) > >As you can see, partner's explanation just happens to match my hand. > >Laws clearly state that before the lead, I must correct partner's >explanation and somebody will then call the Director. >But partner's description has given them more, not less nor different, >information. And they know on which basis my partner decided to bid. >So I decided not to correct anything, because I felt they weren't at >any disadvantage after the wrong explanation. To the contrary, if I >corrected the information, two things could have happened : >a) they could have made a strange lead based on the presumption that >we had no fit >b) they could have complained that my correction misled them : "it is >plain to see that the explanation was correct ; why did he pretend >otherwise ?" > >Logic dictates that I don't pip a word (well, at least my logic). The >Rules say otherwise. Perhaps the Rules are messing things up uselessly >here. I'd suggest a jurisprudency rule that would state : >"when the set of hands matching the explanation given is a subset of >the set of hands matching the real meaning of the bid, and when the >hand happens to belong to this subset, no correction is needed" > >What's your opinion ? I have no quarrel with Alain's practical action, and would find quibbling with it on purely legalistic grounds somewhat churlish. But it doesn't hurt to say something like, "By the way, there are other hands I could hold for 2D, but not this time." You've given away nothing that the opponents wouldn't be entitled to assume had you stayed silent, you've met your strict legal obligations, nobody's going to call the director (even if you wait to make this weighty pronouncement until after the opening lead), you just might avoid a sticky situation if you make the same bid against the same opponents some day, and you'll either remind partner of what your methods are or cue him to ask you about them later. 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 Nov 15 19:17:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF8GEs02178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:16:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAF8G8H02174 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-63-165.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.63.165] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164HYu-0005uv-00; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c16dac$fda165a0$647e01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:57:03 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 > >. It is better and easier, both > for you at the table, and for the TD/AC sorting > it out after the fact, if you to give an explanation > which is consistent with your own holding > rather than one you hope will be consistent with > your partner's -- if only because you can give the > former correctly in every case. > +=+ I think we should return to and be guided by the law book. This does not require you to give an explanation that is consistent with your own holding, nor does it require you to give an explanation that you hope will be consistent with your partner's. It requires you to explain your partner's call in accordance with your partnership agreement, no matter who may have misbid or misexplained prior to the point at which you are answering opponent's question. If through your own misunderstanding, or forgetfulness of your partnership agreements, or because you are misled by some statement that partner makes, you fail to explain the call according to your partnership agreement there is a misexplanation. The explanation to be given must be on the basis that every call in the auction to that point has been in accord with the partnership agreements: the auction must be explained. ~ 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 Nov 15 20:49:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAF9mVs02226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:48:31 +1100 (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 fAF9mOH02222 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:48:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h165.37.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.37.165]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAF9fxo08856 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:42:00 +0300 Message-ID: <3BF38F3A.AA7B33DC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:47:38 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Paris-2001 References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) During meeting this year in Paris WBF LC have made several decisions. One of them was: "The Chairman noted that in Law 12C2 it is provided that assigned adjusted scores may be expressed in either matchpoints or total points. The committee agreed this is so and added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be capable of justification according to the requirements of that law." Grattan, Ton, anybody! Be so kind as to help us: we are prepearing translation and commets on Russian and we do not understand this statement at all. Sorry - I guess that the main reason of our non-understanding is our poor English. But nevertheles we really need help. Cause as we return to the Laws, we can read (L12C2): "for a non–offending side, the most favourable result that was likely" "for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". In terms of total points we can esteemate possible contracts, their probabilities and make TD's (or AC's) decision.And then re-count these results onto match-points. But what (and how) should be done directly in terms of match-points, without intermediate phase of total points? Isn't it an attempt to assign artificial result other than average-plus and average-minus? Cause it seems to us that assigning direct match-points are another way of assigning pro-centage. Regards Vitold P.S. One more word: it was recommended that TD (and AC) should not get to know another results of the board while they take their decision. Is it still recomended? And how one can make the direct math-point decision without such information? Thx in advance 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 Nov 15 22:50:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFBnIg05706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:49:18 +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 (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFBnCH05702 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:49:12 +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 MAA11744; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:41:22 +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 MAA19050; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:42:48 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115123320.00a199f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:43:29 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] dWS info correction In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114210414.00b0a1f0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@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 21:15 14/11/2001 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >But it doesn't hurt to say something like, "By the way, there are other >hands I could hold for 2D, but not this time." AG : nice response. The casual formulation will be enough to avoid any sentiment of aggrievance. > You've given away nothing that the opponents wouldn't be entitled to > assume had you stayed silent, you've met your strict legal obligations, > nobody's going to call the director (even if you wait to make this > weighty pronouncement until after the opening lead), you just might avoid > a sticky situation if you make the same bid against the same opponents > some day, AG : some other day ?? About one year ago, I had, in the same tournament, at the same table, those bidding sequences : p 1NT 2H (NV) 1NT 2H (V) Both times, my partner was the 2H bidder. I explained the first 2H bid as Majors, the second one as 55 Heart/Minor. The vulnerability meant we played another system in defence vs 1NT, which was allowed. For our effort, we collected the TD, a long lamentation, a favorable decision from the TD (or rather he decided there was nothing to decide), who after trying twice forwent explaining the lady what had happened. Today, she still looks at me sideways. But this also means the same bid could mean differents things in similar contexts, not to mention the fact that we might have changed our system in the meantime (OK, not between two deals). So this is not *the* reason. But your formula solves the problems of ethics, quickness and helpfulness. What else need we ask ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 23:01:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFC17O07173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:01:07 +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 (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFC11H07156 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:01:01 +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 MAA13310; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:53:11 +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 MAA29532; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:54:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:55:17 +0100 To: blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] another condoning problem 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, The recent thread about what actions can be condoned remembers me of an old question. North is the opener. South puts his stop card on the table. North says 'hey, it's my turn'. We all know that since South hasn't bid yet (Laws clearly state when a bid is made), North has to bid, and will be put under L16 restrictions. But ... may not West accept the Stop and ask South to make his bid ?? This matter is not covered by the Laws, but the reason is not that the Lawmakers didn't want to allow this ; the reason is that the use of bidding boxes by itself is only superficially covered by the Laws. I think the next edition should treat some classical cases about BB problems. Apart from this one, there are : the matter of misbid vs finger error (most TDs would not consider a finger error if the 'wrong' card came from the other part of the BB, but on what grounds) ; quickness and ostentation in the use of the bidding cards for L73 purposes ; and the case of the accidentally dropped bidding card (I pull out a pass, and down comes stop, or -worse- the opposite). I'm sure you will find several other interesting matters. Regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 15 23:36:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCZcE11537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFCZWH11531 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCT6T03872 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3A856.E1CDAB8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:34:46 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Assume that 2D 'mexican' is what N plays with > the hog, and that S does not know 2D 'mexican' > at all ;-). > I have imagined this could happen as well. I suppose I would urge South to say "I don't remember what that response means" without revealing to North that this is because he does not play Mexican in the first place. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCZk311546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFCZcH11536 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTCT03910 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3A8D6.1A566C79@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:36:54 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > First of all I want you to admit that this second reply will > > be far easier to give to a simple player. "bid according to > > your own idea of system, explain according to partner's" is > > a very simple answer, easy to give and easy to understand > > and to apply. I hope you will not think that this is > > untrue. > > I disagree here. How can S possibly know what > is going on in N's mind when N invents his own system > on the spot? N's explanation possibly might be > "what they played before". But it might also be > "what N expects because he has read about > it in a book". > Or N's agreements with a different player. > I'm not saying that South will always have a clear picture of North's intentions. I'm only asking what South should do if he has. Surely you can imagine that in a sufficiently large number of cases South does know what the system is that North is apparently playing, after North has given some explanation of a previous bid. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCZvF11559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:57 +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 fAFCZgH11542 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTJT03970 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3A95D.2341FCE5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:39:09 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > EW have MI about S's hand. This MI might possibly > get resolved by S's correct explanations of N's bids. > It might. But it's possibly too late already. Or not important and resolved before the lead anyway. A fact is that South is (by L45D2) prohibited from clearing up the picture. So imagining some method by which it gets resolved is against the Laws, not helping them. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCa6W11572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:06 +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 fAFCZjH11545 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTMT03988 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3AA01.B1EDA6FD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:41:53 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Hm. If I understand this scenario, South has UI that North thinks 2D > is Mexican. So he knows, *from UI* that 4H is probably a transfer. If > he then explains it as a transfer, in an attempt to avoid giving UI > to North, has he not violated 73C and/or 73F2? If not, why not? > Common fallacy, Ed. South is prohibited from using the UI in the calls (and plays) that he makes. There is nothing in the Laws that prohibits him from doing other actions based on the UI (such as explaining a later call). If North is right, and the "transfer" explanation is the correct one, as the Majority school are also saying, then South is also using UI to give the reply "transfer". > What of the player who has no clue what 4H means (whether or not he > should have one)? > Simply say "I don't remember". > Regards, > > Ed > -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCaEV11583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFCZnH11553 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTQT04014 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3AA81.A4F3F47B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:44:01 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@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: > > > > >Now according to the Majority school, the answer should be : > >"if you are certain that you have made a misbid, you should > >explain this as a transfer, for that is what it is in your > >system; > >if OTOH you are certain that you have the system correct, > >then you should explain it as a natural bid, because that is > >what it is in your system; > >if you are uncertain of your system, you should explain ... > >(please Davids, fill in, I have no idea what you want this > >player to explain)" > > I don't think so. I think the majority would say that you should > explain in a manner consistent with your own bidding in all cases. If > you and your partner disagree as to what your methods are, let the TD > (or AC) worry about who misbid and who misexplained. Don't try to use > the UI your partner has given you (and that's assuming he's been kind > enough to do so) to figure it out. > I don't think that is true. I think the majority school would urge the player to explain according to system, in all cases. That includes explaining the true system (transfer) when South realizes that North was telling the truth when explaining 2Di as Mexican. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCaNi11584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:23 +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 fAFCZtH11558 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTWT04040 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3AADC.5FBA158C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:45:32 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@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: > > > > >First of all I want you to admit that this second reply will > >be far easier to give to a simple player. "bid according to > >your own idea of system, explain according to partner's" is > >a very simple answer, easy to give and easy to understand > >and to apply. I hope you will not think that this is > >untrue. > > Easy if you can read your partner's mind -- or if he happens to have > been asked for an explanation. Otherwise impossible. According to the > De Wael School, you will commit an infraction any time you are asked > for an explanation about which you and your partner disagree, unless he > happens to have fortuitously offered a full explanation of your own > prior bidding, and you're not using screens. > But we are only talking of the case where partner has been asked for an explanation, and has given one not consistent with your own ideas from the bidding. All the other cases that you state above fall outside the scope of this problem. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCaQV11587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:26 +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 fAFCZvH11561 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:35:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTYT04056 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3AB52.FAAD3D5D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:47:30 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@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: > > > You know (from UI) that partner has spades, but you pass 4H. If you > explain that partner has hearts, you have misinformed the opponents as > to partner's holding. But if you explain that partner has spades, and > then pass, are they not entitled to assume that *you* have hearts? -- > you are not, I believe we all agree, required to inform them that you > know you are in the midst of a bidding misunderstanding (in this > particular case, it may be obvious to them, but in general it won't > be). So, as a practical matter, you are misinforming them either > way. As a legal matter, one of you has misinformed them while the > other one has misbid, so they have misinformation in any case. But you > generally won't know who has done which. It is better and easier, both > for you at the table, and for the TD/AC sorting it out after the fact, > if you to give an explanation which is consistent with your own holding > rather than one you hope will be consistent with your partner's -- if > only because you can give the former correctly in every case. > Eric, you are one step ahead of me. You are discussing which of the 2 alternatives is better. My fight - mainly with DWS - is about whether my alternative is legal or not. I have not yet read David's comments. -- 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 Nov 15 23:36:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCaS111588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:28 +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 fAFCa1H11568 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTbT04066 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3ABA7.FCA6D353@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:48:55 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <003701c16dac$fda165a0$647e01d5@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: > > If through your own misunderstanding, > or forgetfulness of your partnership agreements, > or because you are misled by some statement > that partner makes, you fail to explain the call > according to your partnership agreement there > is a misexplanation. The explanation to be > given must be on the basis that every call in > the auction to that point has been in accord > with the partnership agreements: the auction > must be explained. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The auction must be explained. Partner bids 4 hearts intending to show spades. I believe this should be told to opponents. -- 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 Nov 15 23:37:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFCaXx11593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFCa4H11574 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:36:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAFCTfT04118 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF3AD72.B3E88FE2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:56:34 +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] dWS info correction References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011114163726.0244c910@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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > > I haven't read your case, yet, because I almost posted much the same > answer I'm about to post to your previous message. It is this: it > appears that the dWS advocates ignoring what the law says in favor of > expedience. IMO, that's the wrong approach, however much it helps to > avoid problems. > That's unfair and untrue, Ed. The dWS is fully aware of what the Law says, and sess that it says two different things. The player in this situation cannot avoid breaking one Law or another. The dWS tries to solve this dilemma by breaking the Law that seems to least harm the opponents (telling them a bid means spades when this is a technical but not a real untruth). -- 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 Nov 16 01:00:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFDxpW12138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:51 +1100 (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 fAFDxkH12134 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:46 +1100 (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 fAFDrL753369 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:53:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011115082425.00abe280@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, 15 Nov 2001 08:54:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 In-Reply-To: <003701c16dac$fda165a0$647e01d5@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:57 AM 11/15/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I think we should return to and be guided >by the law book. This does not require you to >give an explanation that is consistent with your >own holding, nor does it require you to give an >explanation that you hope will be consistent >with your partner's. It requires you to explain >your partner's call in accordance with your >partnership agreement, no matter who may >have misbid or misexplained prior to the >point at which you are answering opponent's >question. > If through your own misunderstanding, >or forgetfulness of your partnership agreements, >or because you are misled by some statement >that partner makes, you fail to explain the call >according to your partnership agreement there >is a misexplanation. The explanation to be >given must be on the basis that every call in >the auction to that point has been in accord >with the partnership agreements: the auction >must be explained. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I believe we all agree with this. But as practical advice it falls short of the mark. *If* you know that partner thinks your bid means something other than what you intended, *if* you know what partner thinks it means, and *if* you know for sure which of you is correct according to your system (*if*, indeed, your system is well enough defined for one of them to be unambiguously "correct"), then you can fulfill your obligations as defined by the law book. I've even done this on occasion. I've sat down with a partner with whom I've agreed to play EHAA "out of the book". If asked for an explanation of a call, I can answer with confidence as to its systemically defined meaning. I can do this because *I wrote the book*! This will not be the case very often. In the "De Wael School" debate, we are talking about positions where, in general, you will know the first two, but will have no idea who is right -- or even if there is a "right" according to your actual agreements, which may be less than perfectly clear and unambiguous. What then? Guess? Or assume as "right" for purposes of explanation that which you are required to assume is "right" for purposes of making your subsequent calls? I submit that the latter is easier on you, and easier on the TD/AC who may have to sort it out later (whatever you do). It allows you to act consistently on the basis of a very simple principle: partner's explanations to the opponents are not for your ears. If you were unsure of the "systemic" meaning of your call (even assuming there is one) when you made it, fulfilling your legal obligation as defined by TFLB requires achieving a moment of satori in which all suddenly comes clear between the time you called and the time you explained partner's subsequent call. If that happens, fine. But it will happen very rarely, if ever. And when it doesn't, you still have to say *something*. 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 Nov 16 01:28:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFESL912160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:28:21 +1100 (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 fAFESGH12156 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:28:16 +1100 (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 fAFELqC64690 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:21:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@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, 15 Nov 2001 09:23:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 In-Reply-To: <3BF3AADC.5FBA158C@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@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 06:45 AM 11/15/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > Easy if you can read your partner's mind -- or if he happens to have > > been asked for an explanation. Otherwise impossible. According to the > > De Wael School, you will commit an infraction any time you are asked > > for an explanation about which you and your partner disagree, unless he > > happens to have fortuitously offered a full explanation of your own > > prior bidding, and you're not using screens. > >But we are only talking of the case where partner has been >asked for an explanation, and has given one not consistent >with your own ideas from the bidding. All the other cases >that you state above fall outside the scope of this problem. Which is why the "De Wael School" view doesn't feel right. Among the cases in which you and your partner disagree as to the meaning of your auction, it applies only when the above conditions are met, which will, in practice, be relatively rare. It demands that under these, rare, circumstances you do something completely at odds with what you will do in the majority of such cases, and which will make things more complicated both for you and for whoever has to sort things out later. It's far easier to offer explanations, in all such cases, that are consistent with your own bidding, and let the TD/AC worry about the complexities of the misbid/misexplanation distinction. FTR (and for Grattan), we know what the law requires under the rare circumstances in which you know with certainty what your exact systemic agreements are, but, given that we are talking about situations in which there is known to be disagreement on precisely that point between you and your partner, those circumstances will be very rare indeed. 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 Nov 16 01:51:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFEopg12180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:50:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFEojH12176 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:50:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d097.iae.nl [212.61.3.97]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9812C21026 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:44:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000301c16de3$f65edb60$61033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3BEFC950.EB225013@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] honest player Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:16:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Soft to say now, but the Chief director, responsible for a fair result, has to overlook the frequency sheets before publication, anyhow before expiration of the well-known period. EW have had there chance. Next time better. Hear to north. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: [BLML] honest player > What to do in the following case : > > EW play and make 3NT. > > N marks the table scorecard 3NT ( ) = 400 in the NS column. > the column "by" is not marked. > > The score +400 is entered in the computer for NS. > > 3NT is an uncommon contract on the board, so the computer > operator (me) does not remark anything strange. All scores > are between +400 and -400. > It should be said that NS are vulnerable, so the operator > could have seen it, while the program did not, since +400 is > possible (-8). > [Anyway, I'm not accepting the blame. :-)] > > All participants receive a personal score sheet. EW do not > remark anything wrong on theirs. > NS do - but too late (the following morning in fact). > > NS have received a top for a bottom, an extra 3% in total, > an unmerited 14th place, and 4000 BEF. With a score of -400 > on the deal they would have been 23rd, in line for some > prize in kind. > EW would not gain anything with their extra 3% (well, a lot > of places, but nothing worthwhile). > > There is no indication whatsoever of bad intent on the part > of N, a player beyond any suspicion. > The player himself brings the facts to the attention of the > organizers. > > What would you do ? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 02:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFF5wQ12209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:58 +1100 (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 fAFF5rH12205 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.78]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GMUKM400.4VW for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:06:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-238.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.238]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8401/10652465); 16 Nov 2001 00:59:27 Message-ID: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:58:22 +1100 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 Pairs, Dealer West xxx Jxxxx J9 Kxx KJ10xx AQ9 xx AQx AK65 82 xx Q108x xx K10x Q1074 AJ97 West opened 1S, raised to 4S by East. North led a heart to the queen and king. South switched to a trump, declarer won, cashed DAK, ruffed a diamond, HA, H ruff, D ruff and showed his SKJ10, claiming ten tricks. North and East both silently thought that South had five diamonds. South was curious that declarer did not try to make a trick with his fifth diamond. South then realised that the entire hand had been played without D3. It turned out to be stuck behind another card in dummy, invisible to the players. South called the Director who said that "dummy can't revoke" so the score stands. To check this, a search for the relevant Law yielded Law 64B3. However the heading of this section "Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card" was a concern, as D3 was never "faced". Furthermore, the wording of this Law seemed a bit weird, because what hand except dummy's is ever "faced on the table"? Does Law 64B3 apply to the unfaced D3? Or is there some other Law that says: "Dummy can't revoke"? Don't tell me that one of bridge's most famous sayings is wrong? Also, should the Director consider using Law 64C to restore equity (4S goes down one if dummy has three diamonds)? 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 Fri Nov 16 02:13:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFFD9912230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:13:09 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFFD3H12226 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:13:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-62-181.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.62.181] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164O4N-000NyC-00; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:04:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c16de6$f9a91d00$9f417bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:04:03 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > FTR (and for Grattan), we know what the law > requires under the rare circumstances in which > you know with certainty what your exact systemic > agreements are, but, given that we are talking > about situations in which there is known to be > disagreement on precisely that point between > you and your partner, those circumstances will > be very rare indeed. > +=+ The existence of disagreements does not change the law. The requirement to explain meanings according to your systemic agreements remains unaltered by the confusion in the mind of the player. If he fails to explain the meanings of partner's calls according to the partnership agreements he is guilty of misexplanation. If there is no partnership agreement it is a full explanation to say so, provided it turns out to be true. Opponents have an absolute entitlement to know the meaning of the auction according to the partnership agreements; if there is a partnership agreement it must be disclosed and a player's fallibility is no excuse for not doing so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 02:48:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFFmSH12252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:48:28 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFFmMH12248 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:48:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-98-209.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.98.209] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164OcY-0003tC-00; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:40:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c16deb$e8dca140$d162063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:40:07 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 14 November 2001 21:33 Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: David Stevenson > > > I have never believed this rubbish. When > > > my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have > > > no agreement, I assume he has reasonable > > > length in the suit. > > > > > > There are various possible meanings for 3S > > > over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one > > >for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. > > > > >+=+ What is this about 'no agreement'; East > >believes she has an agreement; it is just not what > >West says it is, but she is not allowed to be > >pulled out of her dream by the UI. She has to > >interpret 3S on the basis of the agreement > >that was in her mind when she bid on the > >previous round. ~ G ~ +=+ > > She believes she has an agreement that 2D > was a weak-2 bid probably, but she may not have > any agreement on what what 3S means. How is > she supposed to interpret 3S if she has never > defined that bid in any partnership? > +=+ She is in exactly the same position as she would be if 2D = Weak Two were indeed the partnership understanding and she must act consistently with the way she would act in that event; her interpretation of 3S should be whatever it would be in that case, and for her to justify subsequently. If 3S would be a bid that would be outside of her experience she must still cope with it as she would in the event, and then argue her case if challenged subsequently. Having UI she is stuck with her intended meaning of 2D until the auction goes so far awry as to tell her that things are amiss. And it is not our interpretation of 3S that matters; she must say what responses to a Weak 2D mean in her understanding: we cannot impose meanings upon her. ~ 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 Nov 16 03:00:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFG0Xf12279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:00:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFG0QH12275 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:00:27 +1100 (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 fAFFrs764939 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:53:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@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, 15 Nov 2001 10:55:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 In-Reply-To: <001a01c16de6$f9a91d00$9f417bd5@pacific> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@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 10:04 AM 11/15/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ The existence of disagreements does not >change the law. The requirement to explain meanings >according to your systemic agreements remains >unaltered by the confusion in the mind of the player. If >he fails to explain the meanings of partner's calls >according to the partnership agreements he is guilty >of misexplanation. If there is no partnership >agreement it is a full explanation to say so, provided >it turns out to be true. Opponents have an absolute >entitlement to know the meaning of the auction >according to the partnership agreements; if there is >a partnership agreement it must be disclosed and >a player's fallibility is no excuse for not doing so. I do not disagree with that. We are discussing cases where someone cannot follow the law with certainty. He can offer either of two explanations: the one which is consistent with his bidding, or the one which he believes to be consistent with his partner's. He must do so with the presumptive understanding that if he guesses wrong as to which is the systemically correct explanation, he will have committed an MI infraction and his (good) result may be adjudicated away. The question remains on the table: in this situation, which explanation should he, as a practical matter, offer? 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 Nov 16 03:28:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFGRsN12325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:27:54 +1100 (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 fAFGRmH12321 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:27:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.10.150] (helo=[217.35.10.150]) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 164PGX-0001jg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:21:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:21:22 +0000 To: "BLML" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:58 am +1100 16/11/01, Peter Gill wrote: >... what hand except dummy's >is ever "faced on the table"? Penalty cards are faced on the table. Gordon Rainsford LONDON UK -- 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 Nov 16 03:33:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFGXG212338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:33:16 +1100 (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 fAFGXAH12334 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:33:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.10.150] (helo=[217.35.10.150]) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 164PLk-0002Jn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:26:48 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:26:46 +0000 To: blML From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] another condoning problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:55 pm +0100 15/11/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Dear blmlists, > >The recent thread about what actions can be condoned remembers me of >an old question. >North is the opener. South puts his stop card on the table. North >says 'hey, it's my turn'. >We all know that since South hasn't bid yet (Laws clearly state when >a bid is made), North has to bid, and will be put under L16 >restrictions. >But ... may not West accept the Stop and ask South to make his bid ?? >This matter is not covered by the Laws, but the reason is not that >the Lawmakers didn't want to allow this ; the reason is that the use >of bidding boxes by itself is only superficially covered by the Laws. Is not the real reason that "Stop" is not a call? >I think the next edition should treat some classical cases about BB >problems. Apart from this one, there are : the matter of misbid vs >finger error (most TDs would not consider a finger error if the >'wrong' card came from the other part of the BB, but on what >grounds) ; quickness and ostentation in the use of the bidding cards >for L73 purposes ; and the case of the accidentally dropped bidding >card (I pull out a pass, and down comes stop, or -worse- the >opposite). I'm sure you will find several other interesting matters. > >Regards, > > alain. > -- Gordon Rainsford LONDON UK -- 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 Nov 16 03:40:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFGecN12350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:40:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAFGeXH12346 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:40:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:35:00 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E606@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:34:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Pairs, Dealer West > xxx > Jxxxx > J9 > Kxx >KJ10xx AQ9 >xx AQx >AK65 82 >xx Q108x > xx > K10x > Q1074 > AJ97 > >West opened 1S, raised to 4S by East. North led a heart >to the queen and king. South switched to a trump, declarer >won, cashed DAK, ruffed a diamond, HA, H ruff, D ruff and >showed his SKJ10, claiming ten tricks. North and East both >silently thought that South had five diamonds. South was >curious that declarer did not try to make a trick with his fifth >diamond. South then realised that the entire hand had been >played without D3. It turned out to be stuck behind another >card in dummy, invisible to the players. > >South called the Director who said that "dummy can't revoke" >so the score stands. To check this, a search for the relevant >Law yielded Law 64B3. However the heading of this section >"Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card" was a concern, >as D3 was never "faced". Furthermore, the wording of this >Law seemed a bit weird, because what hand except dummy's >is ever "faced on the table"? > >Does Law 64B3 apply to the unfaced D3? > >Or is there some other Law that says: "Dummy can't revoke"? > >Don't tell me that one of bridge's most famous sayings is wrong? > >Also, should the Director consider using Law 64C to restore >equity (4S goes down one if dummy has three diamonds)? > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia Of course dummy CAN revoke (there is no law that says that dummy can't), but a revoke of dummy is not subject to penalty (64B3). As soon as the missing card is found, it must be added to the hand it belongs to (14B1b). It is deemed to have belonged to dummy all the time, and failure to play it is a revoke (14B3). A revoke of dummy is not subject to penalty (64B3). However, if this revoke damages the non-offending side, then the score is still adjusted (64C - this includes revokes not subject to penalty, such as this one). Without revoke declarer goes one off, so that is the score we will write. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 04:50:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFHnoC12390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:49:50 +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 fAFHniH12386 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:49:45 +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 JAA02744; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:43:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200111151743.JAA02744@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:58:22 +1100." <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:43:20 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Pairs, Dealer West > xxx > Jxxxx > J9 > Kxx > KJ10xx AQ9 > xx AQx > AK65 82 > xx Q108x > xx > K10x > Q1074 > AJ97 > > West opened 1S, raised to 4S by East. North led a heart > to the queen and king. South switched to a trump, declarer > won, cashed DAK, ruffed a diamond, HA, H ruff, D ruff and > showed his SKJ10, claiming ten tricks. North and East both > silently thought that South had five diamonds. South was > curious that declarer did not try to make a trick with his fifth > diamond. South then realised that the entire hand had been > played without D3. It turned out to be stuck behind another > card in dummy, invisible to the players. > > South called the Director who said that "dummy can't revoke" > so the score stands. To check this, a search for the relevant > Law yielded Law 64B3. However the heading of this section > "Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card" was a concern, > as D3 was never "faced". Furthermore, the wording of this > Law seemed a bit weird, because what hand except dummy's > is ever "faced on the table"? > > Does Law 64B3 apply to the unfaced D3? Yes. The D3 may not have been "faced", but read all of 64B3: it applies to any card faced on the table OR BELONGING TO A HAND FACED ON THE TABLE. So there is no penalty for this revoke. However, Law 64B makes it clear that the failure to play the D3 *is* a revoke; the heading on L64 is "No Penalty Assessed", not "This Is Not A Revoke". Since Law 64C specifically applies to revokes that are not subject to penalty, it should have been applied here. > Or is there some other Law that says: "Dummy can't revoke"? > > Don't tell me that one of bridge's most famous sayings is wrong? It's wrong, but per your request I'm not going to tell you that. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 06:09:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFJ8S512450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:28 +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 fAFJ8DH12430 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:13 +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 164Rlj-000G5G-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:01:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:48:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 References: <001c01c16a16$6ad2a8e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007801c16d50$0f91a8e0$564d7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007801c16d50$0f91a8e0$564d7bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: David Stevenson >> I have never believed this rubbish. When >> my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have >> no agreement, I assume he has reasonable >> length in the suit. >> >> There are various possible meanings for 3S >> over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one >>for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. >> >+=+ What is this about 'no agreement'; East >believes she has an agreement; it is just not what >West says it is, but she is not allowed to be >pulled out of her dream by the UI. She has to >interpret 3S on the basis of the agreement >that was in her mind when she bid on the >previous round. ~ G ~ +=+ It is only really a disagreement as to the meaning of the English language, and in a disagreement we always assume I am wrong, do we not? :) She does not have an agreement at the moment with the current partner as to a 3S response to a weak 2D opening. I am sorry: to me this meant she had no agreement. Even so, I stand by my comments. -- 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 Nov 16 06:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFJ8N912441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:23 +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-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 fAFJ89H12423 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:10 +1100 (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 164Rla-000J07-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:01:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3dMnF2EDA$87EwDA@onetel.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:40:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >> > I have never believed this rubbish. When >> > my partner suddenly jumps in a suit, and I have >> > no agreement, I assume he has reasonable >> > length in the suit. >> > >> > There are various possible meanings for 3S >> > over 2D, but only "natural" is a reasonable one >> >for a pair that has not heard of this sequence. >> > >>+=+ What is this about 'no agreement'; East >>believes she has an agreement; it is just not what >>West says it is, but she is not allowed to be >>pulled out of her dream by the UI. She has to >>interpret 3S on the basis of the agreement >>that was in her mind when she bid on the >>previous round. ~ G ~ +=+ > > She believes she has an agreement that 2D was a weak-2 bid probably, >but she may not have any agreement on what what 3S means. How is she >supposed to interpret 3S if she has never defined that bid in any >partnership? When someone believes they are playing 2D as a weak two, I find it incredible that they do not play 2D as a weak two with anyone ever!!!!! As always, we ask questions before we rule, and I suppose you can find a situation where she has no idea whatever what she is doing. Even so, I find it incredible that she would then take 3S as anything but natural. I agree to play with you tomorrow, saying Acol, weak twos in three suits, 12-14. First board you bid 2D, I bid 3S. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would assume it was anything but natural? > I'm still curious to know why 4S and 6D are being considered LAs, more >so the latter. If this person has any particular reason to assume 3S was a splinter, such as generic agreements, or she plays it as splinter whenever she does play 2D as weak, then a slam in diamonds seems reasonable with no wasted spade values and maximum. Otherwise 3S is normally natural, and what other bid is there but 4S? -- 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 Nov 16 06:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFJ8Qg12445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:26 +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 fAFJ8DH12433 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:14 +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 164Rlk-000G5H-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:01:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:52:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C again References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> 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 > Pity: I thought this was an excellent case to make a point, and now I >find I have misread the question. Pillock. > > OK, the principles I espouse are correct, the detail I have written is >total rubbish. Sorry. I am getting worse !!!!!!!!! Aaarrgggghhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I mis-read the question. Yes, I confused East with West. But, as I realised driving down the motorway to a Crockfords match, it does not affect my answer at all. My answer was ok. Birdbrain. Quango is not impressed. Incidentally, Quango got a hammock for his birthday. Nanki Poo loves it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 06:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFJ8MM12440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:22 +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-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 fAFJ89H12422 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:08:10 +1100 (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 164Rla-000J06-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:01:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:34:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland References: <200111150104.UAA21517@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200111150104.UAA21517@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 >> You can condone an action violating the >> obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. > >Why would the TD not allow it? Wouldn't that ruling violate L9B1c? >(Thanks, Adam.) I've always (well, always since 9B1c was added) >assumed the TD should offer the next player the option of accepting the >illegal non-pass. Under what Law? L37 does not give the TD this option. -- 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 Nov 16 07:03:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFK2gQ19539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:02:42 +1100 (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 (f128.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFK2bH19535 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:02:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:56:10 -0800 Received: from 172.137.53.2 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:56:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.137.53.2] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:56:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2001 19:56:10.0151 (UTC) FILETIME=[92523370:01C16E0F] 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] San Diego Rulng #2 >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:40:35 +0000 > > When someone believes they are playing 2D as a weak two, I find it >incredible that they do not play 2D as a weak two with anyone ever!!!!! > > As always, we ask questions before we rule, and I suppose you can find >a situation where she has no idea whatever what she is doing. Even so, >I find it incredible that she would then take 3S as anything but >natural. Call me weird (or better, inexperienced), but I play weak 2's and have no agreement with any partner about what 3S means. However I do have agreements like weak jump shifts and raise only non-forcing. So while I would take 3S to be natural, I would also take it to be weaker than invitational since 2S would have been forcing and it's a jump shift. > I agree to play with you tomorrow, saying Acol, weak twos in three >suits, 12-14. First board you bid 2D, I bid 3S. Are you seriously >trying to tell me that you would assume it was anything but natural? > > > I'm still curious to know why 4S and 6D are being considered LAs, >more > >so the latter. > > If this person has any particular reason to assume 3S was a splinter, >such as generic agreements, or she plays it as splinter whenever she >does play 2D as weak, then a slam in diamonds seems reasonable with no >wasted spade values and maximum. Otherwise 3S is normally natural, and >what other bid is there but 4S? Pass. 4S is only an option (to me) if 3S is invitational or stronger. Does it matter to you what the strength of 3S is or is it being natural sufficient? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 08:59:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAFLwWC19589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:58:32 +1100 (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 fAFLwQH19585 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:58:27 +1100 (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 fAFLq4B13952 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:52:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001f01c16e1f$aac40860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <3BF38F3A.AA7B33DC@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris-2001 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:49:02 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From vitold: ####### During meeting this year in Paris WBF LC have made several decisions. One of them was: "The Chairman noted that in Law 12C2 it is provided that assigned adjusted scores may be expressed in either matchpoints or total points. The committee agreed this is so and added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be capable of justification according to the requirements of that law." Grattan, Ton, anybody! Be so kind as to help us: we are prepearing translation and commets on Russian and we do not understand this statement at all. Sorry - I guess that the main reason of our non-understanding is our poor English. But nevertheles we really need help. ####### Don't be sorry, Vitold. I was raised in the English language and majored in English at school, and I don't understand what this means either. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 11:09:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG07gP19644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:07:42 +1100 (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 fAG07aH19640 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:07:37 +1100 (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 fAG01Am11750 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:01:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:54:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] another condoning problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20011115190111-R01010800-e8f57008-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 11/15/01 at 12:55 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > The recent thread about what actions can be condoned remembers me of an old > question. > North is the opener. South puts his stop card on the table. North says > 'hey, it's my turn'. > We all know that since South hasn't bid yet (Laws clearly state when a bid > is made), North has to bid, and will be put under L16 restrictions. > But ... may not West accept the Stop and ask South to make his bid ?? I don't see how. > This matter is not covered by the Laws, but the reason is not that the > Lawmakers didn't want to allow this ; the reason is that the use of bidding > boxes by itself is only superficially covered by the Laws. Pfui. No bidding boxes. South says "I'm about to make a skip bid." North objects because it's his turn to bid. What's the difference? > I think the next edition should treat some classical cases about BB > problems. I'm not sure that kind of thing needs to be in the laws per se. Law 18F allows ZOs to authorize different methods of making calls. I would think that if they do so, *they* should provide some guidance regarding how to handle irregularities. 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 Fri Nov 16 11:16:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG0GTf19981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:16:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAG0GNH19960 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:16:23 +1100 (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 fAG09xm19786; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:09:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:04:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 To: Bridge Laws cc: Herman De Wael X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3BF3A8D6.1A566C79@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20011115191000-R01010800-9c17e0ea-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 11/15/01 at 12:36 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > I'm not saying that South will always have a clear picture > of North's intentions. I'm only asking what South should do > if he has. Surely you can imagine that in a sufficiently > large number of cases South does know what the system is > that North is apparently playing, after North has given some > explanation of a previous bid. I would think that if South knows, from experience with North, what is going on, he is obligated to explain it by the principle of full disclosure. But the closest Law I can find that might support this is 75C, which doesn't quite say that he is so obligated. This may be a consequence of the alert procedure having been "added on" to the laws, instead of being specified (or at least authorized) in Law 20. 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 Fri Nov 16 12:06:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG16NO20724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:23 +1100 (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 fAG168H20708 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:09 +1100 (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 164XM0-0005wf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:45 +0000 Message-ID: <2nVHbEHj9F97EwIu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:35:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] another condoning problem References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >The recent thread about what actions can be condoned remembers me of an old >question. >North is the opener. South puts his stop card on the table. North says >'hey, it's my turn'. >We all know that since South hasn't bid yet (Laws clearly state when a bid >is made), North has to bid, and will be put under L16 restrictions. >But ... may not West accept the Stop and ask South to make his bid ?? >This matter is not covered by the Laws, but the reason is not that the >Lawmakers didn't want to allow this ; the reason is that the use of bidding >boxes by itself is only superficially covered by the Laws. It is similar to a case where a player speaks, and says Stop, so, in fact, is not a BB problem at all. No, you may not condone the call because it has not been made, BBs or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 12:06:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG16JE20722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAG166H20704 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:07 +1100 (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 164XM0-0005wd-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:27:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C References: <002501c16d20$339a0f00$475097d4@swipnet.se> In-Reply-To: <002501c16d20$339a0f00$475097d4@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 fAG169H20709 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hans-Olof Hallén writes >I agree that the number of VP:s can be less than 30, and maybe even more >than 30. But what about this: >Inthe qualifying stage of, say the Bridge Olympiad, four teams qualify for >the next round. team A has 200 VP, teams B and C 199 VP each. B plays C in >the last round. team A happily scores 15 and think they are through. But >when B plays C the TD >has tu use 82C on all 24 boards. Both B and C score 72-0 and both get 25 VP. >Team A has no chance. >I hear you all say this does not happen and, sure, it does not, but >theoretically? >Comments? Sack the Directors? Remember, we are talking about TD error. In principle we are talking about a very rare situation. Now, you are predicating a situation where the TDs have acted as total morons, and one team has suffered. If TDs act frequently as total morons, *of course* the game is not fair. In the Qualifying stage of the Bridge Olympiad, how many rulings do you expect under L82C? One every ten years, perhaps? The reason people worry about L82C and other things where "protecting the field" problems appear is because they have theoretical discussions but ignore the practicalities. While any decision can affect the winner, even a very small one, in practical terms that applies to so much of bridge, like revokes and things, but there is no reason to worry about it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 12:06:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG16Mj20723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAG167H20706 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:08 +1100 (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 164XM0-0005we-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:30:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011114102314.00a1d7b0@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 >> OTOH, what will you tell Team B or Team C if they >>are eliminated because the TD made an error at their table >>that prevented them from having a chance to get a good score? >>The number of cases where one pair, at the table, has been >>cheated out of a chance to qualify is far larger than the >>number of cases where someone else loses out because >>_both_ pairs got good results. >> Achieve justice at the table first, and if in some >>rare cases that causes others to lose out in "impossible" >>ways so be it. Tell pair A to blame the TD, not the laws. >>As long as I'm not the TD.... :) > >This is not an easy problem, and it may not be soluble completely >within the laws. Which would indicate that either the Laws need >changing, or conditions of contest need to deal with this >possibility. It seems fair to me that the outcome of this problem >with the B/C match should determine who plays against Team A in the >final, *not* whether Team A gets knocked out all together. If the >sponsors of this tournament haven't allowed for the possibility of >this occurring, and there's no way within the laws to make it fair, >then so be it, but... > >I'm not at the level at which I might play in a Bridge Olympiad any >time soon, and I don't know how those who are feel about it, but I >have to say that if I were on Team A in this case, I would *never* >play in a Bridge Olympiad again. Not without an assurance that this >could not possibly happen again, and a public apology from the >sponsors of the event for having screwed it up. And maybe not even >then. Of course, but that is nothing to do with L82C. The situation given is one where the TDs acted dreadfully an incompetently, and that is what should be dealt with, not a Law designed for odd trivial cases. Do not confuse a situation which if it occurs has nothing to do with the Laws with a discussion on a Law. -- 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 Nov 16 12:07:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG16No20725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:24 +1100 (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 fAG169H20710 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:06:10 +1100 (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 164XM0-0005wg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:40:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? References: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@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 >Pairs, Dealer West > xxx > Jxxxx > J9 > Kxx >KJ10xx AQ9 >xx AQx >AK65 82 >xx Q108x > xx > K10x > Q1074 > AJ97 > >West opened 1S, raised to 4S by East. North led a heart >to the queen and king. South switched to a trump, declarer >won, cashed DAK, ruffed a diamond, HA, H ruff, D ruff and >showed his SKJ10, claiming ten tricks. North and East both >silently thought that South had five diamonds. South was >curious that declarer did not try to make a trick with his fifth >diamond. South then realised that the entire hand had been >played without D3. It turned out to be stuck behind another >card in dummy, invisible to the players. > >South called the Director who said that "dummy can't revoke" >so the score stands. To check this, a search for the relevant >Law yielded Law 64B3. However the heading of this section >"Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card" was a concern, >as D3 was never "faced". Furthermore, the wording of this >Law seemed a bit weird, because what hand except dummy's >is ever "faced on the table"? > >Does Law 64B3 apply to the unfaced D3? > >Or is there some other Law that says: "Dummy can't revoke"? There is no Law that says dummy can't revoke, fairly obviously, because it is quite obvious that dummy can revoke. If on the opening heart lead above, dummy had played the SA, dummy would have revoked. >Don't tell me that one of bridge's most famous sayings is wrong? Why not? It is on a par with "The worst crime in bridge is to lead away from a king". >Also, should the Director consider using Law 64C to restore >equity (4S goes down one if dummy has three diamonds)? Of course. Declarer cannot gain from a revoke just because the revoke is by dummy. That would be a strange idea! Note the wording of L64C: 'When, after *any* established revoke, ...'. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 13:33:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG2Wov20793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:32:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail34.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail34.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG2WjH20789 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:32:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail34.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011116022621.JZQT634.femail34.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b>; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:26:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011115212400.008268b0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:24:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200111142212.OAA13999@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:12 PM 11/14/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> At 11:38 AM +0000 11/14/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> > Yes, but it is not true. You can condone an action violating the >> >obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. >> >> I don't understand this. Under what law will the TD not allow it? > >Making a non-pass call when required to pass is an inadmissible call. >There's no option under the Laws to condone an inadmissible call. By >contrast, there are options to condone a call out of rotation or an >insufficient bid (see 27A, 29A). Since those Laws explicitly give you >this option, you cannot forfeit it by calling the TD. And if a player who is required to pass instead makes some other call, L37 prescribes the penalty, and says, "If offender's LHO calls, see Law 35C." This appears to give offender's LHO the right to call, and he cannot lose this right by calling the TD either. There is no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity; for example, it is common for a defender simply to follow when declarer has led from the wrong hand but the defender can see that there is no advantage for the declarer to gain by the wrong lead. I would say that this infraction should not be considered an inadmissible call, the way that bidding more than seven or doubling partner's bid must be because neither b >Side note: When looking into this, I noticed something that I suspect >has been discussed before on BLML, a long time ago. Suppose the >auction goes: > > South West North East > 1S pass 2S pass > pass pass pass 1H > >North's last pass is after the final pass of the auction. According >to L35D, that pass AND ALL SUBSEQUENT CALLS are cancelled without >penalty---meaning there's no penalty for the 1H call. > >I'm assuming that this means: >(1) there can be no lead penalties on West, but >(2) the 1H call is still UI to West, probably by L16C2; I'm assuming > that the 1H call is an offense since it follows the last pass of > the auction, and that the cancellation mandated by L35D makes it a > "withdrawn call" for the purpose of L16C2. I would assume that this is correct. Both North and East have committed infractions; North's is AI to E-W and East's is UI to West. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 15:05:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG43LS20840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:03:21 +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 fAG43DH20836 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:03:15 +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 DAA00782 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:56:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:54:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] another condoning problem References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115124443.024500f0@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 , Gordon Rainsford writes >At 12:55 pm +0100 15/11/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>Dear blmlists, >> >>The recent thread about what actions can be condoned remembers me of >>an old question. >>North is the opener. South puts his stop card on the table. North >>says 'hey, it's my turn'. >>We all know that since South hasn't bid yet (Laws clearly state when >>a bid is made), North has to bid, and will be put under L16 >>restrictions. >>But ... may not West accept the Stop and ask South to make his bid ?? >>This matter is not covered by the Laws, but the reason is not that >>the Lawmakers didn't want to allow this ; the reason is that the use >>of bidding boxes by itself is only superficially covered by the Laws. > >Is not the real reason that "Stop" is not a call? STOP is the same as clearing ones' throat. I haven't made a bid. You can't make me bid-out-of-turn when it's against the law. > > >>I think the next edition should treat some classical cases about BB >>problems. Apart from this one, there are : the matter of misbid vs >>finger error (most TDs would not consider a finger error if the >>'wrong' card came from the other part of the BB, but on what >>grounds) ; quickness and ostentation in the use of the bidding cards >>for L73 purposes ; and the case of the accidentally dropped bidding >>card (I pull out a pass, and down comes stop, or -worse- the >>opposite). I'm sure you will find several other interesting matters. >> >>Regards, >> >> alain. >> >-- >Gordon Rainsford > >LONDON UK -- 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 Nov 16 18:28:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG7RXE08793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:27:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAG7RRH08776 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:27:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-42-104.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.42.104] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 164dJ8-000O7O-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:21:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c16e6f$5af64a00$682a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <200111151906.fAFJ6mL25291@mx2.lineone.net> Subject: [BLML] Notice re General Review of the Laws. Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:19:08 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is the basic text of a notice sent to all NBOs. We are also doing our best to get it to as many Tournament Directors as we can. from: Grattan Endicott > Arrangements are now in hand for the > coming General Review of the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge. The Drafting > Sub-committee requires me to gather > subject matter for the Review, and the > suggestions and problems that you > would like the next Code of Laws to > address. > > I have been instructed that there is to > be a deadline for submissions and that > I am not to take forward to the sub- > committee any submissions received > after that deadline. > > Please note, therefore, that any > organization, group or individual wishing > to submit ideas or proposals for > consideration must ensure that I receive > them NOT LATER THAN > Tuesday, May 14th 2002. > > They may be sent to: > G. Endicott, Secretary, > WBF Laws Committee, > 14 Elmswood Court, > Palmerston Road, > Liverpool, United Kingdom L18 8DJ > > or by email to > > gester@lineone.net > > Yours sincerely, > Grattan Endicott. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 19:57:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG8uvn12596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:56:57 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG8unH12588 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:56:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-85.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.85] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164efl-0003vH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c16e7b$d6fe3020$5553063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002501c16d20$339a0f00$475097d4@swipnet.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:36:34 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C > > The reason people worry about L82C and other > things where "protecting the field" problems appear > is because they have theoretical discussions but > ignore the practicalities. > +=+ One thing I do know: when the words "made at his table" were inserted in Law 92A it followed a discussion in which it was agreed that contestants not involved at the table have no rights in the rulings and adjustments made for other contestants. Each contestant is entitled to an equitable resolution of irregularities occurring at his table and to the score that he obtains in the outcome. That score is then incorporated in his total score which is entitled to rank amongst all the other scores of the other contestants; it is a score that fairly reflects his participation in the event and which it is proper to compare with the results of others. It is a mean and squalid attitude that argues an individual should be damaged in his comparison with others by a misfortune attributable to a Director's imperfections, and this applies to each side at the table when both are non-offending. What I would add is that we should do our utmost throughout only to award artificial adjusted scores when we have no way of assigning a score, the latter being more flexibly capable of attunement to equity, (er, especially if 12C3 is operative:-). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 19:57:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG8utl12595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:56:56 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG8ulH12586 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:56:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-85.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.85] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164efk-0003vH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:48:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c16e7b$d6026b00$5553063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Normal and unforeseen, (was San Diego Rulng #2) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:44:13 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 15, 2001 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > >From: David Stevenson > >Reply-To: David Stevenson > >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:40:35 +0000 > > > >. Otherwise 3S is normally natural, > > +=+ Normally? So this is commonly catered for?+=+ > > > > and what other bid is there but 4S? > +=+ Er, 3NT? +=+ > > Pass +=+ With some, perhaps; what this thread is all about is the range of ideas contributors have as to their personal treatment of this rare and obscure response that has been occasioned by system fracture. No-one is interested any more in what it meant for East at the table. Let's change the subject title. ~ 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 Nov 16 20:04:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG94Gw12619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:04:16 +1100 (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 (f245.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.245]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG94BH12615 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:04:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:57:42 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:57:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: agot@ulb.ac.be Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:57:42 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2001 08:57:42.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0975DB0:01C16E7C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk


Remember Hill's Law. You spend a period of your life trying to improve things and they are worse when you finish than when you started. (This refers not to your efforts which indeed probably prevent things from being even worse. Apply it to any organisation you have worked with.) >From: Alain Gottcheiner >To: "David Burn" , blML >Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram >Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:18:23 +0100 > >At 15:10 8/11/2001 +0000, you wrote: > >>Mais ce miracle, nous le verrons quand? >>Quand les poules auront les dents. > >AG : hmm. I've read that they had, about 30 million years ago. That being >said, I think imprecisions in any law text (or erros in a text being >edited) may be cut by a specific percentage in a fixed amount of time (kind >of Law of Diminishing Solutions). This means the amount of imprecisions >will never become 0, so your odontogallinaceous appreciation might well be >right. > >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/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 20:30:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAG9UJF12637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:30:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f250.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.16.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG9UEH12633 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:30:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:23:46 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:23:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: cyaxares@lineone.net Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:23:45 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2001 09:23:46.0189 (UTC) FILETIME=[645ED3D0:01C16E80] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk


It might be useful if we distinguished in discussion between facts as presented which for instance in this case would lead me to suggest 4S-2 as being reasonable, And how we might alter the decision if other facts were known - e.g. EW played weak twos last week and 3S suggested 3NT. Then we could be sure the system was forgotten. I think at times we mix these two types of thread to the detriment of clear discussion (For the lurker anyway!) >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "Thomas Dehn" , >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 >Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:13:44 -0000 > > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"A solitary fantasy can totally transform >a million realities." - Maya Angelou. >+ + + + + + + + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Thomas Dehn >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:35 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 > > > > > > > There are three possible rulings: > > 1.) Adjust to 4S down a few: C lead, > > C ruffed, HAK cashed (or even > > underleading the HAQ twice), C > > ruffed, H, declarer misguesses > > spades for down three. 2.) Adjust > > to 4D or 5D down a few. 3.) Assume > > that 3S has to be interpreted as a > > splinter, and adjust to a slam > > contract, doubled. > > >+=+ Without knowing what East said to >the Director when she went to consult >him? These are your ideas, based on >your understanding of the game; very >reasonable in themselves, but no kind >of decision until you have the full facts. > The Director knew what she had >told him and he ruled 'score stands'; >no-one can say he is wrong until all >the information is in the open. We >have only a biased and incomplete >account of the occurrence up to >now. ~ 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 16 22:48:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGBlPi13576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:47:25 +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 fAGBlJH13571 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:47:20 +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 164hMH-00016F-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:40:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:41:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: David Stevenson >>Reply-To: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >>Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 >>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:40:35 +0000 >> >> When someone believes they are playing 2D as a weak two, I find it >>incredible that they do not play 2D as a weak two with anyone ever!!!!! >> >> As always, we ask questions before we rule, and I suppose you can find >>a situation where she has no idea whatever what she is doing. Even so, >>I find it incredible that she would then take 3S as anything but >>natural. > >Call me weird (or better, inexperienced), but I play weak 2's and have no >agreement with any partner about what 3S means. However I do have >agreements like weak jump shifts and raise only non-forcing. So while I >would take 3S to be natural, I would also take it to be weaker than >invitational since 2S would have been forcing and it's a jump shift. Perhaps I should repeat myself [or as the meeja say nowadays, repeat myself again!]. We ask questions before we rule! If your methods suggest that 3S might be weak and pre-emptive, then we rule on that basis. I just find it a strange method opposite a pre- empt. >> I agree to play with you tomorrow, saying Acol, weak twos in three >>suits, 12-14. First board you bid 2D, I bid 3S. Are you seriously >>trying to tell me that you would assume it was anything but natural? >> >> > I'm still curious to know why 4S and 6D are being considered LAs, >>more >> >so the latter. >> >> If this person has any particular reason to assume 3S was a splinter, >>such as generic agreements, or she plays it as splinter whenever she >>does play 2D as weak, then a slam in diamonds seems reasonable with no >>wasted spade values and maximum. Otherwise 3S is normally natural, and >>what other bid is there but 4S? > >Pass. 4S is only an option (to me) if 3S is invitational or stronger. Does >it matter to you what the strength of 3S is or is it being natural >sufficient? No, of course it matters. It is difficult to give advice on BLML without assumptions. We can just refuse to give advice, of course, but that does not seem right. Best is usually to give advice, and for people to accept that it is general rather than specific: we were not there. -- 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 Nov 16 22:48:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGBlWl13581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:47:32 +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-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 fAGBlPH13577 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:47:26 +1100 (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 164hML-000I5j-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:40:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:45:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris-2001 References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <3BF38F3A.AA7B33DC@elnet.msk.ru> <001f01c16e1f$aac40860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001f01c16e1f$aac40860$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 vitold: > >####### >During meeting this year in Paris WBF LC have made several decisions. One of >them >was: >"The Chairman noted that in Law 12C2 it is provided that assigned adjusted >scores >may be expressed in either matchpoints or total points. The committee agreed >this >is so and added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be >capable of justification according to the requirements of that law." > >Grattan, Ton, anybody! Be so kind as to help us: we are prepearing >translation >and commets on Russian and we do not understand this statement at all. >Sorry - I >guess that the main reason of our non-understanding is our poor English. But >nevertheles we really need help. >####### > >Don't be sorry, Vitold. I was raised in the English language and majored in >English at school, and I don't understand what this means either. L12C2 contains two sentences. Certain people have assumed that you can give an adjusted score under L12C2 by taking the second sentence and ignoring the first. While I believe this to be ridiculous myself, I am pleased that the WBFLC has confirmed this to be wrong. When the WBFLC say "added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be capable of justification according to the requirements of that law" they mean that to give a score in matchpoints does not absolve the TD from making sure that it is 'the most favourable result that was likely' or 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable'. -- 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 Nov 16 23:52:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGCpHH13616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:51:17 +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 fAGCpAH13612 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:51:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAGCikT15999 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:44:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:44 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 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: <3dMnF2EDA$87EwDA@onetel.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Otherwise 3S is normally natural, and what other bid is there but 4S? I don't know for sure but if 4S is the bid to make on Tx,xxx,KJTxx,QJx it can't be right with Tx,xx,AKQxxx,Qx. So if you play wide ranging weak twos I really don't think 4S is an LA for a good player. 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 Nov 17 00:19:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGDFAO15002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:15:10 +1100 (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 fAGDF4H14990 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:15:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-153.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.153]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B8C8453C98 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:08:33 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:06:56 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: West is declarer in 3N. At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. K 7 - - - A 6 5 K - - - - - - 10 9 - Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his two "winners". The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play on the South's trick 12 diamond winner. Declarer argues that because North led a spade initially (presumably from a four card suit), he "knows" that he holds the outstanding two spades and that South's last card must be a heart. NS argue that since spades was the only unbid suit, it is not certain that North started with four and that in any event discarding the HK at trick 12 would be "careless or inferior" but not "irrational", particularly by a declarer who had failed to keep track of the diamond suit. TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the defence. Does BLML 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 Sat Nov 17 01:38:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGEa5625631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:36:05 +1100 (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 fAGEZxH25617 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:35:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-66-156.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.66.156] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 164jzp-000O2n-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1><4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:22:13 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: 15 November 2001 15:55 Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 > At 10:04 AM 11/15/01, Grattan wrote: > > I do not disagree with that. We are discussing cases > where someone cannot follow the law with certainty. > He can offer either of two explanations: the one which > is consistent with his bidding, or the one which he > believes to be consistent with his partner's. He must > do so with the presumptive understanding that if he > guesses wrong as to which is the systemically correct > explanation, he will have committed an MI infraction > and his (good) result may be adjudicated away. The > question remains on the table: in this situation, which > explanation should he, as a practical matter, offer? > +=+ The one that he believes to be correct or most likely so according to their agreements, having heard the different explanation from partner (which is, however, UI to him for the purpose of the subsequent auction). ~ 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 Nov 17 02:03:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGF2ws28419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:02:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGF2qH28415 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:02:53 +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 PAA24794; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:53:14 +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 PAA14333; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:56:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011116155604.02572c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:57:05 +0100 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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 13:06 16/11/2001 +0000, Brambledown wrote: >West is declarer in 3N. >At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > >A 6 5 >K - >- - >- - > - > 10 > 9 > - > >Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his two >"winners". > >The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play on the >South's trick 12 diamond winner. > >Declarer argues that because North led a spade initially (presumably from a >four card suit), he "knows" that he holds the outstanding two spades and >that South's last card must be a heart. > >NS argue that since spades was the only unbid suit, it is not certain that >North started with four and that in any event discarding the HK at trick 12 >would be "careless or inferior" but not "irrational", particularly by a >declarer who had failed to keep track of the diamond suit. AG : I fully agree with NS's analysis. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 17 02:08:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGF8Ea28441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGF85H28427 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-156.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.156]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAGF1cB07529 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:01:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF4F68A.325BD63C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:20:42 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115082425.00abe280@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: > > > I believe we all agree with this. But as practical advice it falls > short of the mark. *If* you know that partner thinks your bid means > something other than what you intended, *if* you know what partner > thinks it means, and *if* you know for sure which of you is correct > according to your system (*if*, indeed, your system is well enough > defined for one of them to be unambiguously "correct"), then you can > fulfill your obligations as defined by the law book. > > I've even done this on occasion. I've sat down with a partner with > whom I've agreed to play EHAA "out of the book". If asked for an > explanation of a call, I can answer with confidence as to its > systemically defined meaning. I can do this because *I wrote the > book*! This will not be the case very often. > > In the "De Wael School" debate, we are talking about positions where, > in general, you will know the first two, but will have no idea who is > right -- or even if there is a "right" according to your actual > agreements, which may be less than perfectly clear and > unambiguous. What then? Guess? Or assume as "right" for purposes of > explanation that which you are required to assume is "right" for > purposes of making your subsequent calls? I submit that the latter is > easier on you, and easier on the TD/AC who may have to sort it out > later (whatever you do). It allows you to act consistently on the > basis of a very simple principle: partner's explanations to the > opponents are not for your ears. > > If you were unsure of the "systemic" meaning of your call (even > assuming there is one) when you made it, fulfilling your legal > obligation as defined by TFLB requires achieving a moment of satori in > which all suddenly comes clear between the time you called and the time > you explained partner's subsequent call. If that happens, fine. But > it will happen very rarely, if ever. And when it doesn't, you still > have to say *something*. > Eric is also one step ahead here. Let's define three meanings : yours (according to what you thought you were playing), his, and ours. Quite often indeed, you don't know what our "system" is. So explaining our system may often be a guess. What also happens is that partner gives a reply that is nonsensical in your system (since he is bidding in his system). But something which is usually well known is "his" system. After all, it is usually a simple bid within his system, and he just told you what he thinks "his" system is. So on the scope of which of the three explanations is easiest to give, "his" system quite clearly wins. And it has the added advantage of correctly describing "his" hand as well. Should count for something. -- 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 Nov 17 02:08:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGF8Jx28442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:19 +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-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 fAGF87H28429 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-156.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.156]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAGF1gB07567 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:01:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF4F79D.FB62ABF7@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:25:17 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@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: > > > > >But we are only talking of the case where partner has been > >asked for an explanation, and has given one not consistent > >with your own ideas from the bidding. All the other cases > >that you state above fall outside the scope of this problem. > > Which is why the "De Wael School" view doesn't feel right. Among the > cases in which you and your partner disagree as to the meaning of your > auction, it applies only when the above conditions are met, which will, > in practice, be relatively rare. It demands that under these, rare, > circumstances you do something completely at odds with what you will do > in the majority of such cases, and which will make things more > complicated both for you and for whoever has to sort things out later. > Eric, the fact that it is a rare occurence doesn't mean we don't have to deal with it. Besides, it's not a rare occurence at all. After all the Lawmakers devoted a Law to it (L45D2). > It's far easier to offer explanations, in all such cases, that are > consistent with your own bidding, and let the TD/AC worry about the > complexities of the misbid/misexplanation distinction. > And break L45D2 in the process - and give wrong information to opponents? And why do you call it easier ? 4He after a 2Di weak is far more difficult to explain than 4He after a 2Di Mexican. > FTR (and for Grattan), we know what the law requires under the rare > circumstances in which you know with certainty what your exact systemic > agreements are, but, given that we are talking about situations in > which there is known to be disagreement on precisely that point between > you and your partner, those circumstances will be very rare indeed. > Which is why I urge the requirement to be the same regardless of whether we know with certainty or not which of the initial players has got it right. Don't forget that we might find that both players are wrong (or we have to consider them both wrong since no evidence might be available). -- 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 Nov 17 02:08:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGF8LT28443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:21 +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 fAGF89H28434 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-156.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.156]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAGF1iB07596 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:01:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF4FC30.7C8CB3EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:44:48 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <001a01c16de6$f9a91d00$9f417bd5@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 existence of disagreements does not > change the law. The requirement to explain meanings > according to your systemic agreements remains > unaltered by the confusion in the mind of the player. If > he fails to explain the meanings of partner's calls > according to the partnership agreements he is guilty > of misexplanation. If there is no partnership > agreement it is a full explanation to say so, provided > it turns out to be true. Opponents have an absolute > entitlement to know the meaning of the auction > according to the partnership agreements; if there is > a partnership agreement it must be disclosed and > a player's fallibility is no excuse for not doing so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think we know the legal requirements, Grattan. But I'm talking about the player's duties. He may not be certain about what the true partnership agreement is. Yet he has to tell something. And I maintain that he does not have to reveal his uncertainty, since this is something the opponents are not entitled to. So tell me, can there be any blame on a player who, uncertain of what the true agreement is (or what the TD will judge the true argument to be), chooses one explanation, gives it, and takes the "punishment" if he turns out to be wrong. This has been likened by some with intentional infraction (L72B2) but I fail to see that this applies, since the player does not really know whether or he is right or wrong. -- 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 Nov 17 02:08:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGF8jt28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:45 +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 (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGF8ZH28455 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:08:36 +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 QAA15117; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:00:42 +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 QAA19410; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:02:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011116155852.02572590@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:02:50 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Can't Revoke, can it? In-Reply-To: <01fd01c16de5$f900c480$eed436cb@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 01:58 16/11/2001 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Pairs, Dealer West > xxx > Jxxxx > J9 > Kxx >KJ10xx AQ9 >xx AQx >AK65 82 >xx Q108x > xx > K10x > Q1074 > AJ97 > >West opened 1S, raised to 4S by East. North led a heart >to the queen and king. South switched to a trump, declarer >won, cashed DAK, ruffed a diamond, HA, H ruff, D ruff and >showed his SKJ10, claiming ten tricks. North and East both >silently thought that South had five diamonds. South was >curious that declarer did not try to make a trick with his fifth >diamond. South then realised that the entire hand had been >played without D3. It turned out to be stuck behind another >card in dummy, invisible to the players. > >South called the Director who said that "dummy can't revoke" >so the score stands. To check this, a search for the relevant >Law yielded Law 64B3. However the heading of this section >"Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card" was a concern, >as D3 was never "faced". Furthermore, the wording of this >Law seemed a bit weird, because what hand except dummy's >is ever "faced on the table"? > >Does Law 64B3 apply to the unfaced D3? AG : yes, it does. It mentions cards that are faced *and* cards pertaining to an exposed hand. This double wording is presumably there to signal that cards that aren't faced but are dummy's are considered as faced. >Or is there some other Law that says: "Dummy can't revoke"? AG : no. There has been a revoke (L14B3), but the revoke is not penalized. As Peregrine (or is it Oscar ?) said it : when 4 players accept to play with a 12-card dummy, why should the director jump in at the deep end ? 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 Nov 17 02:24:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGFO3N28484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:24:03 +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 (rc.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGFNvH28480 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:23:58 +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 QAA18016; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:16:05 +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 QAA02444; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:17:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011116160637.0257c7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:18:12 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 12:44 16/11/2001 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3dMnF2EDA$87EwDA@onetel.co.uk> >DWS wrote: > > Otherwise 3S is normally natural, and what other bid is there but 4S? > >I don't know for sure but if 4S is the bid to make on Tx,xxx,KJTxx,QJx it >can't be right with Tx,xx,AKQxxx,Qx. So if you play wide ranging weak >twos I really don't think 4S is an LA for a good player. AG : I woul bid 3NT with your example hand. But I don't want to discourage with the very maximal and big-ODR original hand. Thus I would bid 4S, or 4C if it was my partnership's style. 10x are not to be scoffed at, especially over a *jump* shift. 3NT is too discouraging. BTA I'm not accustomed to weak 2-bids, especially in diamonds. I can throw your argument back at you : if 3NT is the right bid on x-Qxx-KJxxxx-Qxx (and it surely is), it doesn't seem to be with the original hand. Anyway, the length in which we discussed which bids are LAs means that 3NT is by no way an automatical bid, and thus shouldn't be allowed. 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 Nov 17 03:09:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGG9Dt28524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:09:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGG98H28520 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:09:08 +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 IAA25940; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:02:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200111161602.IAA25940@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:06:56 GMT." Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:02:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > West is declarer in 3N. > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > > A 6 5 > K - > - - > - - > - > 10 > 9 > - > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his two > "winners". > > The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play on the > South's trick 12 diamond winner. > > Declarer argues that because North led a spade initially (presumably from a > four card suit), he "knows" that he holds the outstanding two spades and > that South's last card must be a heart. Sorry, I've led from Kxx too many times to buy this argument. -- 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 Nov 17 03:41:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGGfIC28574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:41:18 +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 fAGGfAH28566 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:41:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAGGYja19153 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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: "Brambledown" wrote: > > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > West is declarer in 3N. > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > > A 6 5 > K - > - - > - - > - > 10 > 9 > - > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his > two "winners". > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the > defence. Assuming West is genuinely a *good* player then we can be sure that if he had any doubt over which card he was going to play then he would have conceded two tricks without bothering the TD. The TD's judgement on the spot and having heard the arguments was that the HK would be an irrational discard for this West and I don't have any reason to contradict him. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 17 03:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGGfHo28573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:41:17 +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 fAGGf8H28564 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:41:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAGGYhF19114 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34:43 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20011116160637.0257c7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > Anyway, the length in which we discussed which bids are LAs means that > 3NT is by no way an automatical bid, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I drew a different conclusion. "There are approaches to bidding over weak twos in which 3N is automatic and others where it is not even an LA." I am glad I wasn't the TD on the spot who had the job of determining which approach the partnership would have been using *if* they had been playing weak twos. OTOH it wouldn't be unreasonable for the TD, after investigating, to rule that "because there would be uncertainty over the exact style" there were less suggested LAs than 3NT. 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 Nov 17 04:05:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGH5J902183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:05:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGH5DH02165 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:05:14 +1100 (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 fAGGwld68522 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:58:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011116115858.00b16ba0@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, 16 Nov 2001 12:00:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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 08:06 AM 11/16/01, Brambledown wrote: >West is declarer in 3N. >At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > >A 6 5 >K - >- - >- - > - > 10 > 9 > - > >Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing >his two >"winners". > >The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play >on the >South's trick 12 diamond winner. > >Declarer argues that because North led a spade initially (presumably >from a >four card suit), he "knows" that he holds the outstanding two spades and >that South's last card must be a heart. > >NS argue that since spades was the only unbid suit, it is not certain that >North started with four and that in any event discarding the HK at >trick 12 >would be "careless or inferior" but not "irrational", particularly by a >declarer who had failed to keep track of the diamond suit. > >TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the defence. > >Does BLML agree? Not unanimously. 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 Nov 17 04:23:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGHN1F04294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:23:01 +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 fAGHMtH04279 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:22:55 +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 fAGHFaY28210; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:15:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011116101335.00a1dec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:16:36 -0600 To: Herman De Wael From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <3BF1238F.F8081544@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:43 PM 11/13/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >While thinking about claims in general, I came accross >something which might well be understood by most, but >perhaps not clearly set out in the Laws. [example and discussion snipped] >Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or >irrational is not only dependent on the class of player >involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the >cards ? L70A. Or nowhere. The problem with the current claim laws is that they are broken-backed, based on two independently plausible but jointly inconsistent ideas. On the one hand there is the idea, encouraged by the wording of L70A, that the TD is to look at a claim, figure out what would have happened had the hand been played out, and award that score. When there is significant doubt about what would have happened, he is to rule in favor of the non-claimers. Under this reading of the laws, the rest of L 70 is simply an attempt to deal with specific details of doubtful-point resolution. So, for example, don't allow winning finesses unless it's pretty certain they would have been taken, etc. But all these specific details, including the 'normal' and 'inferior' and 'irrational' concepts, are simply pointers to resolutions within the general framework of producing 'equity' understood as 'what probably would have happened'. On the other hand there is the idea that all laws, L70 included, should give specific step-by-step instructions for the resolution of all problems. Under this interpretation, 'normal' and 'irrational' and so on are terms which, once provided with definitions, will yield a decision proceedure to resolve the claim. Unfortunately, the current laws do not clearly endorse either reading, so controversy abounds. We get into arguments about whether a given play would be 'irrational' or merely 'careless'. Such arguments are unnecessary. Consider the question Herman has produced. Where in the laws does it say that a declarer's false perception of a hand should affect resolution of a claim? It does not. It need not, regardless of which interpretation of the law you favor. If the laws are to give us a clear resolution flowchart, then anything about this declarer's mindset can be rendered irrelevant. We just need a clear definition of what lines are not irrational, and then we find the worst of those lines and stick declarer with it. Sometimes this will be to declarer's benefit, since if we know he was about to embark upon an irrational line he will not be held to it. Almost always, though, it will work against declarer, who will be held to lines so stupid we know he wouldn't have taken them. Either way, though, we don't care what declarer was thinking, except to the degree embraced in his claim statement. We can make rules like 'all suits will be cashed top to bottom', 'trumps will be played before non-trumps [or v.v.]', 'don't crash honors', etc. Ultimately, we can reach the point where we won't even have alternative lines. On the other interpretation, the question we ask is 'what would this declarer probably have done had he played it out'. If this is the basic question of L70A, then there's no need to specify a law that says we take into account declarer's misperceptions of the hand--declarer's perception of the hand is always relevant. The current situation has bad elements of both approaches. Declarer cannot commit a post-claim irregularity, even if we are certain he would have committed it had he played the hand out. This suggests that the law is to be understood in the rigid-adjudication mode. Also, the wording of L70D [my least-favorite law] makes it clear that any delayed statement by declarer can only hurt him-- if he states a successful line of play, it won't be allowed unless there's no choice, and if he states an unsuccessful one it will be held against him. OTOH, the fact that 'irrational' has not been given an official definition, that it has been connected to the class of player, and the fact that virtually no concrete decision processes have been worked out in the law argues for the other interpretation. [As does L70A--if we use the rigid approach, L70A can simply read "If a claim is contested, apply the following routine:"]. I, of course, favor the 'suppose they played it out' approach. [In fact, I would support a law change that allowed the players to actually play the hand out if the non-claimers insist. I confess that I actually violate the law and play hands out when my opponents demand it.] I know many people prefer the other, and I understand their reasons. But the current situation is tailor-made for controversy. Respectfully, Grant >-- >Herman DE WAEL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 17 04:54:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGHrvO07915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:53:57 +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 fAGHrpH07902 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:53:52 +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 JAA27996; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:47:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200111161747.JAA27996@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34:00 GMT." Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:47:26 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: > "Brambledown" wrote: > > > > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > > > West is declarer in 3N. > > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > > > K 7 > > - > > - > > - > > > > A 6 5 > > K - > > - - > > - - > > - > > 10 > > 9 > > - > > > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his > > two "winners". > > > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the > > defence. > > Assuming West is genuinely a *good* player then we can be sure that if he > had any doubt over which card he was going to play then he would have > conceded two tricks without bothering the TD. The TD's judgement on the > spot and having heard the arguments was that the HK would be an irrational > discard for this West and I don't have any reason to contradict him. The Laws dealing with claims refer to a play being careless, inferior, or irrational "for the class of player involved". There are often arguments on BLML about whether plays should be judged irrational based on some objective standard that applies to everyone, or whether it should vary based on the "class" of player; but I think both sides would agree that the Laws don't support judging a play irrational for one particular player. I'm not posting this just to split hairs about the language of the Laws; I think there's a good reason for them to be this way. We really cannot tell what would have been an irrational discard for this West if play had continued. Even if West is honest (since, as DWS likes to assume, players will usually respond honestly to the TD's questions), West can't honestly report on was he was thinking because West wasn't thinking about it and didn't see that it was necessary to think about it. (Plus, if West had been counting carefully enough to "know" what the spade and heart situation was, he would have gotten the diamond count right also, no?) If play had continued, South would have cashed the diamond and West would have been taken by surprise; then he would have tried to figure out who had what. In the actual situation, West was taken by surprise when he saw the last diamond. But West's frame of mind would be different in the two cases; I don't think that a statement by West made with all the cards exposed and with the TD ready to rule on his bad claim is a reliable indicator of what West would have done in actual play. Hope some of this makes sense, -- 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 Nov 17 05:22:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGIML313763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:22:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGIMGH13759 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:22:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011116181540.IOOT628.femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:15:40 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:19:24 -0800 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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Or, you can send anything for him to me, as I will be accessing email daily and I know exactly :-) where he is staying the week after the NABC. Nice quiet room with his own tv and little doggies - will he be able to stand it?? lol :-) 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 Sat Nov 17 05:39:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGIcxV13776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:38:59 +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 fAGIcqH13772 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:38:53 +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 RAA02261 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:35:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:33:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 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 In article , Brambledown writes >Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > >West is declarer in 3N. >At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > >A 6 5 >K - >- - >- - > - > 10 > 9 > - > >Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his two >"winners". > 2 tricks for me. cheers john >The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play on the >South's trick 12 diamond winner. > -- 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 Nov 17 05:41:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGIfWt13792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:41:32 +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 fAGIfPH13788 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:41:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAGIZ0g08793 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:35:00 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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: <200111161747.JAA27996@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Irvine wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > In-Reply-To: > > "Brambledown" wrote: > > > > > > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > > > > > West is declarer in 3N. > > > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > > > > > K 7 > > > - > > > - > > > - > > > > > > A 6 5 > > > K - > > > - - > > > - - > > > - > > > 10 > > > 9 > > > - > > > > > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing > > > his two "winners". > > > > > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the > > > defence. > > > > Assuming West is genuinely a *good* player then we can be sure that > > if he had any doubt over which card he was going to play then he > > would have conceded two tricks without bothering the TD. The TD's > > judgement on the spot and having heard the arguments was that the HK > > would be an irrational discard for this West and I don't have any > > reason to contradict him. > > The Laws dealing with claims refer to a play being careless, inferior, > or irrational "for the class of player involved". There are often > arguments on BLML about whether plays should be judged irrational > based on some objective standard that applies to everyone, or whether > it should vary based on the "class" of player; but I think both sides > would agree that the Laws don't support judging a play irrational for > one particular player. OK, careless language by me. But if the TD classes West as "technically competent and of extremely high ethics" he may still decide the HK discard to be irrational. I am sure that if the TD is *certain* that Wests of this "class" would always discard SA then it would be wrong to give two tricks to the defence. What I do know is that where I play there are only one or two people I wouldn't concede a trick to as defender if they were sure enough to assert a trick. Maybe the TD got it wrong, maybe he had more facts. In still don't know. 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 Nov 17 06:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGJ5FS13810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGJ59H13806 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:05:10 +1100 (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 fAGIwjB17060 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:58:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003401c16ed0$9e68b640$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <3BF38F3A.AA7B33DC@elnet.msk.ru> <001f01c16e1f$aac40860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris-2001 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:51:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >Don't be sorry, Vitold. I was raised in the English language and majored in > >English at school, and I don't understand what this means either. > > L12C2 contains two sentences. Certain people have assumed that you > can give an adjusted score under L12C2 by taking the second sentence and > ignoring the first. While I believe this to be ridiculous myself, I am > pleased that the WBFLC has confirmed this to be wrong. > > When the WBFLC say "added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in > matchpoints must be capable of justification according to the > requirements of that law" they mean that to give a score in matchpoints > does not absolve the TD from making sure that it is 'the most favourable > result that was likely' or 'the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable'. > I understood that much. It would have been helpful if an example had been supplied by the WBFLC, or preferably a generic, algorithmic procedure. We cannot understand what the WBFLC intended until they also give us the procedure to be used when assigning matchpoints instead of an actual score. Let's say that L12C2 dictates an adjusted score that is a top for the NOS and a bottom for the OS, when the table result would be 60/40 percent for the OS/NOS. You can either enter that score adjustment with the other scores and rematchpoint the entire field, or give the NOS its top and the OS its zero, crossing out the matchpoints coming from the table result. That leaves the table result on the score sheet for all others to compare with. If that is the procedure, then it smacks of "protecting the field" in an objectionable way, and may protect one field while damaging the other. Or, you could matchpoint the rest of the field with a lower top, and adjust by Neuberging or factoring their matchpoint scores. Perhaps Herman has an acceptable procedure. It appears to me that the alternative of assigning matchpoints instead of assigning scores is for the benefit of those doing manual scoring, when rematchpointing a large game would take a lot of work and a lot of time. There doesn't seem to be any fully satisfactory way of implementing this alternative, and I hope that those using computer scoring would never choose it. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Las Vegas NABC Nov 17-25) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 17 07:36:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGKZVb23296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 07:35:31 +1100 (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 fAGKZPH23292 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 07:35:26 +1100 (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 fAGKT1B02513; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:29:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005101c16edd$3902d800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Rulng #2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:20:54 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > Alain wrote: > > > Anyway, the length in which we discussed which bids are LAs means that > > 3NT is by no way an automatica bid, and thus shouldn't be allowed. > > I drew a different conclusion. "There are approaches to bidding over weak > twos in which 3N is automatic and others where it is not even an LA." I > am glad I wasn't the TD on the spot who had the job of determining which > approach the partnership would have been using *if* they had been playing > weak twos. OTOH it wouldn't be unreasonable for the TD, after > investigating, to rule that "because there would be uncertainty over the > exact style" there were less suggested LAs than 3NT. > While I usually deplore "class of player" arguments, I used it in this case. I sought out a number of those who I thought were approximately of the same class. A small sample, admittedly, but large enough to tell me that 3NT "is by no way an automatic bid," as Alain says. They were puzzled by 3S, having no idea what it might mean except that it shows spades. I received answers of pass, 4S, and 4D. None bid 3NT. There are times when the "logic of the auction" clearly shows that the wheels have come off, even without the help of UI, but the situation must be extremely clear. While it may be possible, even likely, that the 3S bid in itself (coming from behind a screen, say) would have reminded East of their conventional 2D agreement, it does not seem to be a flag-raising "impossible" bid for those playing a "generic" weak two system, whether a new suit response is forcing or not. The TD might well have asked this East what her understandings are regarding responses to weak twos, which the partnership was playing in the majors. Would 2S be forcing, for instance? A negative response to that would make 3S quite understandable as a forcing bid with good spades. There is a place on the ACBL CC for checking (red box, Alertable if checked) that new suit responses by an unpassed hand are non-forcing. Unfortunately most of those who play non-forcing don't realize they have to check that box. I'm sorry I didn't think of checking their CC at the time, although I don't think it really matters. A sharp player might instantly see the significance of the answer, and automatically say "forcing" when questioned. Other players would not see the significance and would answer according to their methods, possibly giving a self-damaging answer. That provides sharpies an advantage over others in such situations. I don't believe that TDs should be deciding whether someone is lying or not, something that the Laws (e.g., L16A) try to prevent. Some of us (e.g., casebook panelist Ron Gerard) don't like to put players in a position where they may be tempted to lie or may make self-damaging statements out of ignorance. We must not disbelieve players what players say in their own favor, it isn't nice. We should just say that unverifiable testimony, even self-damaging testimony, is irrelevant, to be neither believed nor disbelieved. That's zero weight, David. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Las Vegas NABC Nov 17-25) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 17 08:04:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGL4fi23336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:04:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGL4ZH23332 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:04:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0166.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.134.166] helo=c1r5i8) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164q3t-0007AX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:58:09 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c16ee1$4a0dcd40$a686b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200111161747.JAA27996@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:52:42 -0800 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 vote "last 2 tricks to defense." I agree fully with Adam's analysis here. [Re-read Adam's last para.:"...taken by surprise..."] We seem to be left to choose between: 1) Declarer's "good player" reputation, bolstered by his self-serving (even though presumed honest) statement re the lie of the Spades. 2) Declarer's convincing demonstration that his mind had slipped a cog or two on this hand (He just now has claimed _both_ Tricks 12 & 13 when S, on lead, has the 13th Diamond available to cash.) I am always loathe to judge a contested claim -- where there is any reasonable level of doubt -- in favor of the claimant whose faulty claiming action has deprived us of the chance to see him perform under fire in actual play completion. SIMILAR CASE (DEFENSIVE TRICK 12 CLAIM) -- In a similar vein, 15 years ago I was Declarer against two "good club players" at an ACBL sectional tournament. LHO, already of advanced age (having demonstrated in recent years that he often lost the context of a hand) had gone 'into the tank" while on lead at Trick 12. After 45 seconds, RHO, his much junior partner, became fitful and started scrubbing his card edges across the table in a repeated, sweeping motion. When this had persisted for 10+ seconds, I said to RHO: "Are initiating a defensive claim?" [He certainly seemed to be passing UI to the white-knuckled LHO.] RHO tabled his hand, saying: "_I_ have the last two tricks, with the high D and the high C!" The position was (at 1NT): [1NT, P, P, P] Dx Cx Hx Dx DQ CQ D9 Cx Of course, LHO, who had huddled for 1+ minutes by this time, was reasonably likely to cash his 13th H. In his claim statement, RHO made no mention suggesting awareness of his likely need to choose a Trick 12 pitch. Having inspected his partner's remaining HX and Dx, RHO gave assurances: "Of course, I know from count signals that Partner has a D left, not a C." TD awarded both tricks to defense, announcing: "With players of this caliber, I can't see them losing another trick." I requested a committee. The committee upheld the TD, saying: "We don't think it likely that Offense would win another trick." I felt that RHO, by his inability to control his impatience, had lost us the chance to see the actual ending played out -- _and_ had shown no awareness of his likely Trick 12 pitch problem (until, that is, he had had 5+ seconds to react to the sight of his partner's hand). Tom Wood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > In-Reply-To: > > "Brambledown" wrote: > > > > > > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > > > > > West is declarer in 3N. > > > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > > > > > K 7 > > > - > > > - > > > - > > > > > > A 6 5 > > > K - > > > - - > > > - - > > > - > > > 10 > > > 9 > > > - > > > > > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his > > > two "winners". > > > > > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the > > > defence. > > > > Assuming West is genuinely a *good* player then we can be sure that if he > > had any doubt over which card he was going to play then he would have > > conceded two tricks without bothering the TD. The TD's judgement on the > > spot and having heard the arguments was that the HK would be an irrational > > discard for this West and I don't have any reason to contradict him. > > The Laws dealing with claims refer to a play being careless, inferior, > or irrational "for the class of player involved". There are often > arguments on BLML about whether plays should be judged irrational > based on some objective standard that applies to everyone, or whether > it should vary based on the "class" of player; but I think both sides > would agree that the Laws don't support judging a play irrational for > one particular player. > > I'm not posting this just to split hairs about the language of the > Laws; I think there's a good reason for them to be this way. We > really cannot tell what would have been an irrational discard for this > West if play had continued. Even if West is honest (since, as DWS > likes to assume, players will usually respond honestly to the TD's > questions), West can't honestly report on was he was thinking because > West wasn't thinking about it and didn't see that it was necessary to > think about it. (Plus, if West had been counting carefully enough to > "know" what the spade and heart situation was, he would have gotten > the diamond count right also, no?) > > If play had continued, South would have cashed the diamond and West > would have been taken by surprise; then he would have tried to figure > out who had what. In the actual situation, West was taken by surprise > when he saw the last diamond. But West's frame of mind would be > different in the two cases; I don't think that a statement by West > made with all the cards exposed and with the TD ready to rule on his > bad claim is a reliable indicator of what West would have done in > actual play. > > Hope some of this makes sense, > -- 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 Sat Nov 17 08:41:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGLfSU23369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:28 +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-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 fAGLfHH23358 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:18 +1100 (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 164qdN-000OZr-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 21:34:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:10:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] WBFLC minutes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have updated the WBFLC minutes page on my Lawspage, so Paris is included. http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm Incidentally, I did add some new papers to the Tabiano page, so there is a fair amount there, but I am still short of many of the pages, I regret. hopefully I shall get them all eventually. http://blakjak.com/lwz_ste2.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 17 08:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGLfO523368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:24 +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-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 fAGLfFH23354 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:16 +1100 (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 164qdH-000OZq-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 21:34:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:45:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] et colegram 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 >


>Remember Hill's Law. >You spend a period of your life trying to improve things and they are worse >when you finish than when you started. That sounds a fair description to me of the last six months of my life. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 17 08:41:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAGLfT123370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAGLfIH23361 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:41:19 +1100 (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 164qdN-000OZs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 21:34:53 +0000 Message-ID: <3WAXHZC1rV97EwLJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:29:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Played card by defender MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While I am in the USA I do not know whether I shall have any contact with BLML, so here is a question for you to ponder while I am over there. Suppose you as TD are called to the table. A defender has detached a card and moved it towards the middle of the table, and both declarer and dummy claim to have seen it. Must it be played? Now I have recently seen two lots of advice that say it must be played, and I do not understand this advice *at all*. Both times it was suggested that if both declarer and dummy can see the card then it is visible to partner, but this to me is a fallacy, and I see no reason for this advice. It reminds of the advice in the early days of Bidding Boxes, which said that it was not inadvertent if someone took out a card that was far away from the one that was intended. Of course, this is not always the case, and all the advice did was confuse the TDs and led to some bad rulings. Once the advice was withdrawn, TDs reverted to considering the situation and getting the rulings right. Consider what happens when a defender takes a card out of their hand and there is a question over whether partner can see it. If they face it, by putting it horizontal, even if still in the air, partner will be able to see it at about the same time as the opponents, and if they can see it, it probably is correct that it must be played. However, sometimes a defender detaches a card, and pushes it forward vertically. Now either declarer or dummy can see it around the edge, but it is quite invisible to partner. If the defender waggles the card a bit, moving it around, it can be seen by both opponents, not necessarily simultaneously, but is still invisible to partner. So the advice about opponents seeing it is wrong. It is also far from helpful. The advice that should be given to TDs is to repeat the action, and make their own mind up. This is far better advice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 17 11:34:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAH0XXB23561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:33:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAH0XQH23536 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:33:27 +1100 (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 164tJw-000Jsf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:27:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:19:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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 Linda Trent writes >Or, you can send anything for him to me, as I will be accessing email >daily and I know exactly :-) where he is staying the week after the >NABC. > >Nice quiet room with his own tv and little doggies - will he be able >to stand it?? lol :-) Doggies? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 17 21:08:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAHA6v800173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:06:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from jet.kar.net (root@jet.kar.net [195.178.131.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAHA6nH00169 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:06:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from svk (32.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.32]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fAHA0Hx99734 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:00:19 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <006b01c16f4e$d8a66400$2082b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:58:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe that this example can serve support Mr. Cohen's opinion about an opportunity of change the Law to allow an option of calling the Director or playing out the hand (see Minutes of the Meeting of the WBFLC, Paris, 28th October 2001, #4). In our case declarer has no UI from his claim. Let's give him his chance to guess. Will be useful to direct this example on consideration to the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee? Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: [BLML] Trick 12 claim > Club Championship event, all players are of a good club standard: > > West is declarer in 3N. > At trick 12, South is on lead, having just cashed the 12th diamond. > > K 7 > - > - > - > > A 6 5 > K - > - - > - - > - > 10 > 9 > - > > Overlooking that South has another diamond, West now claims, facing his two > "winners". > > The only question for the TD is which card he assumes West will play on the > South's trick 12 diamond winner. > > Declarer argues that because North led a spade initially (presumably from a > four card suit), he "knows" that he holds the outstanding two spades and > that South's last card must be a heart. > > NS argue that since spades was the only unbid suit, it is not certain that > North started with four and that in any event discarding the HK at trick 12 > would be "careless or inferior" but not "irrational", particularly by a > declarer who had failed to keep track of the diamond suit. > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the defence. > > Does BLML 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 17 21:17:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAHAHSE00199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:28 +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 fAHAHKH00188 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-235.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.235]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAHAArB29742 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:10:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:37:23 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@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: > > > I do not disagree with that. We are discussing cases > > where someone cannot follow the law with certainty. > > He can offer either of two explanations: the one which > > is consistent with his bidding, or the one which he > > believes to be consistent with his partner's. He must > > do so with the presumptive understanding that if he > > guesses wrong as to which is the systemically correct > > explanation, he will have committed an MI infraction > > and his (good) result may be adjudicated away. The > > question remains on the table: in this situation, which > > explanation should he, as a practical matter, offer? > > > +=+ The one that he believes to be correct or most likely > so according to their agreements, having heard the > different explanation from partner (which is, however, UI > to him for the purpose of the subsequent auction). > I am glad to see that Grattan is with me at least on the subject that the different explanation of partner, while UI for further auction, is authorized information for the purposes of the selction of the explanation to be given of the auction so far and further on. That should really settle any qualms that some have with the dWS. Now answer me this, Grattan. We are on an appeals committee, you and I. This South has just explained his partner's 4He bid as "hearts". before the Committee, he tells us that he knew full well that his partner was bidding a transfer. His partner really has spades, and is also stating that he intended it as spades. South offers us a part of his system notes, indicating that 2Di is natural, weak, but with no mention of a response of 4He to it, stating that it must be hearts by consequence. Now you (and I) need to convince our colleagues on the committee that this South did not give misinformation. Do you think we'll succeed (yes I know we will - because they value our legal opinion). Do you feel good about it ? Now turn it around. South explains 4He as transfer, and then does the ethical thing and passes. West is asleep and passes as well. They score -500 in 4He-10, and are asking for -2210 for 7He. We find that 2Di was misexplained. We are ready to rule on that first misexplanation, but we find that West should have done something after the strange pass. Do we rule on the second misinformation ? When the player has correctly informed opponents of the (intended) meaning of 4Sp ? Do you really think we won't get overruled by the other members of the Committee. Maybe this example is not good enough for what I am trying to say, but I believe that South should have the 2 options available, and I think that as a general rule to players, the dWS should not be thrown away. -- 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 Nov 17 21:17:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAHAHV500200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:31 +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 fAHAHNH00192 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-235.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.235]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAHAAuB29763 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:10:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF53376.F9ECF0D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:40:38 +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] Trick 12 claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > > NS argue that since spades was the only unbid suit, it is not certain that > North started with four and that in any event discarding the HK at trick 12 > would be "careless or inferior" but not "irrational", particularly by a > declarer who had failed to keep track of the diamond suit. > > TD ruled that declarer would have got it right - one trick to the defence. > > Does BLML agree? > Just so as to show DB that I'm not a softie on claims : Absolutely NOT. Getting this wrong is around 50%, especially when having gotten diamonds wrong. -- 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 Nov 18 00:29:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAHDRem03166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:27:40 +1100 (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 fAHDRZH03162 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:27:35 +1100 (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 IAA19980 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA12650 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:21:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:21:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111171321.IAA12650@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> You can condone an action violating the > >> obligation to pass - see L35B - but the TD will not allow you to. > > > >Why would the TD not allow it? Wouldn't that ruling violate L9B1c? > >(Thanks, Adam.) I've always (well, always since 9B1c was added) > >assumed the TD should offer the next player the option of accepting the > >illegal non-pass. > From: David Stevenson > Under what Law? L37 does not give the TD this option. 9B1c. If this law does not apply here, when would it ever apply? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 03:23:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAHGMh403294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:22:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02ps.bigpond.com (mta02ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAHGMcH03290 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:22:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta02ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GMYDHY00.BE0 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:22:46 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-207.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.207]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8383/10038064); 18 Nov 2001 02:16:07 Message-ID: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:14:58 +1100 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 Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The Director checked that the other table had not yet played the board (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. Question 1 Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They decided to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap the board. They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that the 1100 penalty was independent of the wrong explanations. Questions 2 Can such an appeal be made? Should the appeal be heard? If so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. Question 3 Has anyone ever heard of a precedent in the history of bridge for a board to be "unscrapped" by an AC? Question 4 Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC determining a score for a table which never played the board in question? Team B now found that they had won the match narrowly, but there was some embarrassment, and a 4 board playoff was held between the two teams. Team B won the Playoff. A member of Team A jokingly suggested that in their 4-board Playoff, the "minus 1100" pair could play at one table, & at the other table the AC could determine 4 scores of their own choosing. :) Question 5 Does anyone have any opinions about 4 board playoffs between teams that have not tied a match? Here's where I came into the story. The EW team felt hard done by and asked me if they have any recourse if an AC decision seems wrong. I mentioned the National Authority to them (ref Law 93C) but an Australian Bridge Federation official stated: "The National Authority will hear matters of law/principle/contentious issues etc and render decisions for the guidance of future ap coms/ directors etc but it is not like a High Court where the review will act to overturn a result during the event, for obvious reasons. The needs to be some finality in our system and in my understanding there is no appeal from a properly constituted appeals committee." Question 6 Does Footnote 25 in Law 93C mean that it's OK for a SO not to have a "national authority" as described in Law 93C? The losers dropped into a Swiss repechage, from which it is possible to get back into the main knockout (details of format available on request). As the AC determination had taken a long time, Team A and their opponents had to skip their 14-board Swiss match and moved onto the next 14-board Swiss match. Question 7 The Tournament Regulations include provisions for a forfeit (18 Vps or higher if ...). Would you use these provisions for this non-match which cannot be played due to the AC delay? Do anyone's Tournament Regulations cover this situation? Question 8 There are no provisions elsewhere in the Tournament Regulations (nor in the Supplementary Regulations) of a scoring procedure for this non-forfeited match. Should the match be scored as 14 X +3 IMPs to each team, i.e 42 IMPs = 25 VPs for each team, per Laws 86A and 12C1? Is Law 12C1 intended only for single boards or can it be applied to a series of unplayed boards? Team A were credited with 18 VPs for their non-match in the Swiss Repechage. They missed out by 6 VPs on topping the Swiss and returning to the main Knockout, so they are out of the tournament. Question 10 I have read that the Australian Bridge Federation plan to modify the WBF's CoP before adopting it. Are any other NBOs doing likewise? 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 Sun Nov 18 16:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vo722413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vXH22396 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:45:52 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #2 Appeal? To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000401c16ff5$0b8dd640$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Questions 2 | Can such an appeal be made? Should the appeal be heard? If | so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) | | The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and | at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC | determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | No, I don't believe that the appeal can go beyond the TD & SO. They made a decision on the boards to be played so end of story. Everyone had their chance on the ones played so no sour grapes. Do not know how the AC can determine a score for the other table? But, I believe that it could happen. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vvs22415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vdH22405 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:46:19 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #6 - National Authority To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000701c16ff5$0d7c38c0$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | | Question 6 | Does Footnote 25 in Law 93C mean that it's OK for a SO | not to have a "national authority" as described in Law 93C? | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | No, I believe that the footnote just allows Zones to have different types of AC's - normal, one judge, etc. However, the responsibility for the "national authority" exists with the NBO. They either have a standing committee for this purpose or they are obligated to create one for the situation. The Law specifically grants the player the right, so it may happen and the NBO's should be prepared. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vUx22390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vMH22381 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:03 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:38:49 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #10 WBF CoP To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000001c16ff5$07d2a300$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Question 10 | I have read that the Australian Bridge Federation plan to modify | the WBF's CoP before adopting it. Are any other NBOs doing | likewise? | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | In Zone 5 we adopted the WBF CoP as is, and adopted the WBF Systems Policy by adapting the event categories to what we have here. Now that I think of it, I believe that the WBF should produce more of these documents. How about their General COC for example? It could be written so that the Zones could easily adopt it as well. Then one could have a logical end to these searches for a solution. First the Laws, then the Supplemental COC, then the WBF GCOC which would always be up-to-date on solutions. What modifications are ABF doing to the CoP? John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vhm22408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vRH22388 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:06 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:01:59 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #7 - Forfeit Regs To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000201c16ff5$0997d2a0$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | | Question 7 | The Tournament Regulations include provisions for a forfeit | (18 Vps or higher if ...). Would you use these provisions for | this non-match which cannot be played due to the AC delay? | Do anyone's Tournament Regulations cover this situation? | | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | Unless you determine that one of the teams is the loser, there can be no 'forfeit' and therefore those provisions should not apply. Our COC does not cover the situation but I wonder if the WBF covers the possibility of being unable to play a match? It is like the artificial score - if any team is wholly at fault they get 0, if any teams is wholly innocent they get 18 or 60% or their average, and somewhere in between when the fault is spread out. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vo622412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vUH22393 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:45:35 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #1 - Scrap? To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000301c16ff5$0a79a720$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. | | EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently | (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both | given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged | bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The Director checked that | the other table had not yet played the board | (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. | | Question 1 | Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) | | The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They decided | to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap the board. | They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that the 1100 penalty | was independent of the wrong explanations. | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | I believe that the TD is so empowered but have trouble with 6D3's phrase of "... for any reason compatible with the Laws ...". If the damage was deemed to be consequent to the wrong explanations, the only options available were the good old 3 IMPs or a new deal. No way does Team B get their 1100 back! John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vuA22414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vaH22401 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:46:08 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #5 - 2nd chance To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000501c16ff5$0c5740c0$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | | Question 5 | Does anyone have any opinions about 4 board playoffs between teams that | have not tied a match? | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | Yes, a very strong opinion. If they have not tied, how can you have a playoff? Seems like someone is getting a second chance, either you have a tied match or you don't. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 16:58:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI5vbO22400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI5vOH22385 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:57:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.126]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GMZ0089OEQDJW@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:47:05 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:47:59 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions - #8 Forfeit Score To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000101c16ff5$08bd9f40$7e2928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Question 8 | There are no provisions elsewhere in the Tournament Regulations | (nor in the Supplementary Regulations) of a scoring procedure | for this non-forfeited match. Should the match be scored as | 14 X +3 IMPs to each team, i.e 42 IMPs = 25 VPs for each team, | per Laws 86A and 12C1? Is Law 12C1 intended only for single | boards or can it be applied to a series of unplayed boards? | | Team A were credited with 18 VPs for their non-match in the Swiss | Repechage. They missed out by 6 VPs on topping the | Swiss and returning to the main Knockout, so they are out of | the tournament. | | Peter Gill | Sydney, Australia. | When similar things have occurred, there has been the hasty phone call to Kojak for an opinion. I don't remember anything like this but it would seem natural to give the teams their average score of their played matches. Equally, you could convert everyone's score to an average VPs/match and rank the teams that way. Probably not much help for Team A, unless they were blitzing all their matches. From the numbers it looks like they needed at least 24 VPs. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 18 20:11:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAI9B7X22571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:11:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAI9B2H22567 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:11:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from Isis5.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis5.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.5]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GMZ00D9MNVJT6@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:04:33 +0100 (MET) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:04:15 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions In-reply-to: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: Richard Bley Message-id: <301504490.20011118100415@uni-duesseldorf.de> Organization: Univ. =?UNKNOWN?Q?D=FCsseldorf?= MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53l) Educational Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Peter, Saturday, November 17, 2001, 5:14:58 PM, you wrote: PG> Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. PG> EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently PG> (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both PG> given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged PG> bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The Director checked that PG> the other table had not yet played the board PG> (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. PG> Question 1 PG> Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) NO. 12C1-3 are rules which are not available to rules as suggested in L6D3. PG> The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They decided PG> to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap the board. PG> They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that the 1100 penalty PG> was independent of the wrong explanations. PG> Questions 2 PG> Can such an appeal be made? Should the appeal be heard? If PG> so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) ANY decision by a TD can be appealed (92A). So np here. PG> The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and PG> at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC PG> determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. PG> Question 3 PG> Has anyone ever heard of a precedent in the history of bridge PG> for a board to be "unscrapped" by an AC? It seems to me that L82C is applicable here. So both sides get the best out of it. In a KO-match is this rule appicable as well I guess. BUT there has to be a split-score. Two nonoffending sides wont get the same score in any hand. At least I cannot guess a hand where both sides get the same score, when they are non-offenders. PG> Question 4 PG> Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC determining a score for a PG> table which never played the board in question? No. PG> Team B now found that they had won the match narrowly, but PG> there was some embarrassment, and a 4 board playoff was PG> held between the two teams. Team B won the Playoff. PG> A member of Team A jokingly suggested that in their 4-board PG> Playoff, the "minus 1100" pair could play at one table, & at the other PG> table the AC could determine 4 scores of their own choosing. :) PG> Question 5 PG> Does anyone have any opinions about 4 board playoffs between teams that PG> have not tied a match? That problem we had here in germany half a year ago. If there is an tie, they can play replacement boards. Maybe they played them just in case, there is a tie. PG> Here's where I came into the story. The EW team felt hard PG> done by and asked me if they have any recourse if an AC decision PG> seems wrong. I mentioned the National Authority to them (ref PG> Law 93C) but an Australian Bridge Federation official stated: PG> "The National Authority will hear matters of law/principle/contentious PG> issues etc and render decisions for PG> the guidance of future ap coms/ directors etc but it is not like PG> a High Court where the review will act to overturn a result during PG> the event, for obvious reasons. The needs to be some finality in PG> our system and in my understanding there is no appeal from a properly PG> constituted appeals committee." PG> Question 6 PG> Does Footnote 25 in Law 93C mean that it's OK for a SO PG> not to have a "national authority" as described in Law 93C? NO. L93C is not available to interpretation. It´s concluding. According to the statutes of the WBF EVERY NBO has to agree with the rules. Even L93C. PG> The losers dropped into a Swiss repechage, from which it is possible to PG> get back into the main knockout (details of format available on PG> request). As the AC determination had taken a long time, Team A and PG> their opponents had to skip their 14-board PG> Swiss match and moved onto the next 14-board Swiss match. PG> Question 7 PG> The Tournament Regulations include provisions for a forfeit PG> (18 Vps or higher if ...). Would you use these provisions for PG> this non-match which cannot be played due to the AC delay? PG> Do anyone's Tournament Regulations cover this situation? We have the regulation (since 1997) that a ko-match is decided by the TD-decision, IF there is no time to get an AC-decision. The decision is still appealable of course. But the matter is than only a "action of a daclaratory judgement". So the result of the appeal has no influence to the result anymore... PG> Question 8 PG> There are no provisions elsewhere in the Tournament Regulations PG> (nor in the Supplementary Regulations) of a scoring procedure PG> for this non-forfeited match. Should the match be scored as PG> 14 X +3 IMPs to each team, i.e 42 IMPs = 25 VPs for each team, PG> per Laws 86A and 12C1? Is Law 12C1 intended only for single PG> boards or can it be applied to a series of unplayed boards? Seems to me a urgent matter of the regulations. 12C1 is IMHO only applicable to single boards. 12C1 regards only to a "iregularity" PG> Team A were credited with 18 VPs for their non-match in the Swiss PG> Repechage. They missed out by 6 VPs on topping the PG> Swiss and returning to the main Knockout, so they are out of PG> the tournament. PG> Question 10 PG> I have read that the Australian Bridge Federation plan to modify PG> the WBF's CoP before adopting it. Are any other NBOs doing PG> likewise? No. PG> Peter Gill PG> Sydney, Australia. -- Cheers Richard mailto:bley@uni-duesseldorf.de -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 18 22:40:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIBdiS22633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:39:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAIBdcH22629 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:39:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 165Q9T-0003Op-0O; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:30:19 +0100 Received: from (0524190215-0011@[217.1.75.209]) by fwd01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 165Q9N-23jUX2C; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:30:13 +0100 From: PeterEidt@t-online.de (Peter Eidt) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions; here: #3+4 X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:30:13 +0100 Message-ID: <165Q9N-23jUX2C@fwd01.sul.t-online.com> X-Sender: 0524190215-0011@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, what an amazing story, but ... Peter Gill wrote: > Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. > > > The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and > at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC > determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. > > Question 3 > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent in the history of bridge > for a board to be "unscrapped" by an AC? > > Question 4 > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC determining a score for a > table which never played the board in question? > > > Peter Gill > Sydney, Australia. > > ... altough Richard (Bley) did not recognize, I did not only hear of a similar case, I had one live. A couple of years ago at the german national teams championchips the TD was called to a table where the following happened: Playing with screens North opened a (strong) NT and East passed. Then the tray was pushed through the screen - but South/West did not pull it, so both did not see the 1 NT bid. South and West both passed and pushed the tray back. As now North/East removed their bidding cards, South and West thought, it was an passed-out board an put their cards back into the board. They where very surprised, when they saw the opening lead from East. At this point the TD was called and made the decision to scrap the board. Of course this decision was wrong !! ... but it happened in the "early" times of national championchips played with screens ... and no one at the table protested. (guess, who was the TD :-((( ) It was the first time the board was played and in the replay of the board the innocent team (EW) had an bidding accident at the other table and lost many IMPs on the board. So they appealed. The AC found out, that the TD made an error by scrapping the board ... OK Then they found out, that the NS hands were both balanced with 17:9 points and that the innocent team at the other table was able - within their bidding methods - to reach 3 NT. Next they determined, that the contract depends on a successful guess in a suit, which is needed for tricks. As there were no clues available, it was an 50/50 decision, so the AC weighted the score, giving 50% 3 NT = and 50% 3 NT -1. Together with the assumed (!) +150 in the open room they gave 2 IMPs to EW instead of 12 IMPs to NS. In this case the AC did not only bid and play the never existing hand in the closed room but even the never played hand in the open room. AND ... in this case noone had the feeling, that the AC made in wrong. greetings Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 18 23:33:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAICWfM22677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAICWUH22660 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-62.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.62] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 165R1L-000Osg-00; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:26:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1702c$4c4448e0$3e4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:37:28 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 17, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. > > EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently > (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both > given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged > bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The > Director checked that the other table had not yet played > the board (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. > > Question 1 > Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) > > The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They > decided to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap > the board. They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that > the 1100 penalty was independent of the wrong explanations. > > Questions 2 > Can such an appeal be made? Should the appeal be heard? If > so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) > > The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and > at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC > determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. > > Peter Gill > Sydney, Australia. > +=+ In my opinion the first matter is one of Law. This should be appealed to the Director under Law 93B1. If he decides that the Director has applied the Law correctly then the AC is limited in that matter as specified in Law 93B3. It is also a matter of Law to be determined by the Director whether the appeals committee has any power to decide a result at the other table. If it is decided there has been an error by the Director (rather than mere foolishness) in doing as he did (he would almost certainly have been wiser to allow the board to be played at the other table) then Law 82C applies and both teams are non-offending. The facts here are not all transparent but I have a deep suspicion the AC has not been sufficiently instructed in the law. The basis of its action is not stated in the report we have. ~ 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 Nov 18 23:33:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAICWne22681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:49 +1100 (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 fAICWYH22668 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-62.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.62] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 165R1P-000Osg-00; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:26:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c1702c$4ec9bb40$3e4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - no smileys. Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:18:17 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 17, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > Here's where I came into the story. The EW team felt > hard done by and asked me if they have any recourse > if an AC decision seems wrong. I mentioned the > National Authority to them (ref Law 93C) but an >Australian Bridge Federation official stated: > > "The National Authority will hear matters of law/ > principle/contentious issues etc and render decisions > for the guidance of future ap coms/ directors etc but > it is not like a High Court where the review will act to > overturn a result during the event, for obvious reasons. > The needs to be some finality in our system and in my > understanding there is no appeal from a properly > constituted appeals committee." > +=+ I doubt that an 'official' can stop the appeal going to the national authority. In any case there are clear matters of law involved. A statement that there is no appeal from a properly constituted appeals committee is contrary to Law 93C. +=+ > > Question 6 > Does Footnote 25 in Law 93C mean that it's OK for > a SO not to have a "national authority" as described > in Law 93C? > +=+ No. The footnote attaches to Law 93B not to Law 93C. The right to appeal to the national authority is inalienable. In the case in question I would have hoped the Director would refer the appeal decision to the national authority under Law 81C9 as a 'contentious issue' (sic). The national authority should be expected not to interfere with judgemental decisions except in extremis, but not be expected to recuse from its duty in matters of law. +=+ > > Question 10 > I have read that the Australian Bridge Federation > plan to modify the WBF's CoP before adopting it. > Are any other NBOs doing likewise? > +=+ It would be objectionable if the ABF pretended to change the WBF CoP. The procedure should be to accept the CoP with stated exclusions and then create separate ABF regulations to cover these. In the matter of consulting the opinions of players: I am aware that the ABF is out of step with the rest of the world; we mentioned the point in Paris. ~ 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 Nov 18 23:33:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAICWiw22680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAICWVH22662 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-62.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.62] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 165R1N-000Osg-00; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:26:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c1702c$4d7b9060$3e4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003901c16b94$def64d60$79033dd4@b0e7g1> <3BF38F3A.AA7B33DC@elnet.msk.ru> <001f01c16e1f$aac40860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris-2001 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 09:34:18 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Paris-2001 > > > L12C2 contains two sentences. Certain people > have assumed that you can give an adjusted score > under L12C2 by taking the second sentence and > ignoring the first. While I believe this to be ridiculous > myself, I am pleased that the WBFLC has confirmed > this to be wrong. > +=+ Any such assumption seems remarkably obscure. The second sentence needs to follow from the first in order to make sense, I would have said. +=+ > > When the WBFLC say "added that scores assigned > under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be capable of > justification according to the requirements of that law" > they mean that to give a score in matchpoints does > not absolve the TD from making sure that it is 'the > most favourable result that was likely' or 'the most > unfavourable result that was at all probable'. > +=+ With amendment to "WBFLC says" and later to "it means" this explanation shows a helpful grasp of the language.:-) Vitold is entitled to his explanation, he does need to get it right in Russian (if the Russians have words for it). The Director is not so much required to 'make sure' as to have this for his aim. ~ 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 Nov 18 23:33:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAICWof22682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:50 +1100 (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 fAICWbH22673 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-62.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.62] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 165R1S-000Osg-00; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:26:07 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:25:58 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 16, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 > I am glad to see that Grattan is with me at least on the > subject that the different explanation of partner, while UI > for further auction, is authorized information for the > purposes of the selction of the explanation to be given of > the auction so far and further on. > +=+ But this is not in doubt. It is not illegal to possess UI; it is illegal (Law 16) to base a call or play on it, or (Law 73C) to take from it any advantage that might accrue to the possessor's side. +=+ > > Now answer me this, Grattan. > > We are on an appeals committee, you and I. > +=+ "Modified rapture" +=+ > This South has just explained his partner's 4He bid as > "hearts". before the Committee, he tells us that he knew > full well that his partner was bidding a transfer. His > partner really has spades, and is also stating that he > intended it as spades. South offers us a part of his system > notes, indicating that 2Di is natural, weak, but with no > mention of a response of 4He to it, stating that it must be > hearts by consequence. > > Now you (and I) need to convince our colleagues on the > committee that this South did not give misinformation. Do > you think we'll succeed (yes I know we will - because they > value our legal opinion). Do you feel good about it ? > +=+ I would only propose this to our colleagues if I were satisfied the evidence was good that Hearts shows Hearts. I would want to know a little from North about his understanding of the auction. But, if North has misbid, South has explained correctly according to system, why should our very able colleagues have a problem? +=+ > > Now turn it around. South explains 4He as transfer, and > then does the ethical thing and passes. West is asleep and > passes as well. They score -500 in 4He-10, and are asking > for -2210 for 7He. We find that 2Di was misexplained. We > are ready to rule on that first misexplanation, but we find > that West should have done something after the strange > pass. Do we rule on the second misinformation ? When the > player has correctly informed opponents of the (intended) > meaning of 4Sp ? Do you really think we won't get overruled > by the other members of the Committee. > +=+ Have I got it right that South misbids, North explains the bid according to system, and South explains North's bid also in accordance with the partnership agreement, but then (properly) retreats to his original misbid in passing the 4H bid (on the basis that it is a self sufficient suit opposite a Weak Two)? If so, to quote Espinosa, "WHAT is the infraction"? I defend application of the laws as they are. I do not defend the laws for their immaculate perfection and it is my intention in the General Laws Review to recall, or seek out, as many of their imperfections as I can and try to persuade my colleagues to create better, or different, law in such cases. ~ 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 Nov 19 01:52:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIEoxO22761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 01:50:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAIEotH22757 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 01:50:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.78]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GN03WZ00.AW7 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:50:59 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-89.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.89]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8401/15385852); 19 Nov 2001 00:44:20 Message-ID: <01be01c1703f$5865c640$59dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 01:43:10 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The full hand is given below - it is complex but interesting .... Grattan Endicott wrote: >Peter Gill had written: >> Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. >> >> EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently >> (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both >> given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged >> bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The >> Director checked that the other table had not yet played >> the board (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. >> >> Question 1 >> Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) >> >> The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They >> decided to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap >> the board. They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that >> the 1100 penalty was independent of the wrong explanations. >> >> Questions 2 >> Can such an appeal be made? Should the appeal be heard? If >> so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) >> >> The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and >> at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC >> determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. >> >> Peter Gill >> Sydney, Australia. >> >+=+ In my opinion the first matter is one of Law. >This should be appealed to the Director under Law 93B1. >If he decides that the Director has applied the Law >correctly then the AC is limited in that matter as >specified in Law 93B3. > It is also a matter of Law to be determined by >the Director whether the appeals committee has any >power to decide a result at the other table. That is what I thought and what I would have said, had I been on this particular AC. I am told that the AC consisted of at least 7 people. Is this too large? Unwieldy? OK? > If it is decided there has been an error by the >Director (rather than mere foolishness) in doing as >he did (he would almost certainly have been wiser to >allow the board to be played at the other table) then >Law 82C applies and both teams are non-offending. > The facts here are not all transparent but I have >a deep suspicion the AC has not been sufficiently >instructed in the law. The basis of its action is not >stated in the report we have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Exactly. One day later, all is calm here; Team A are disappointed but no more, and the tournament has returned to normal, with Peter Newman's team heading for a third consecutive win in the Grand National Teams, which with over 1600 teams originally entered is claimed (not by me) to be the world's biggest bridge event. The hand can be found in Daily Bulletin #6 which should appear at www.abf.com.au/events/spnot/2001/bull6.pdf but the Bulletin wouldn't appear on screen when I just tried it. So here's the full hand and story. This is not the official write-up but can be expected to be at least 99% accurate. My earlier emphasis (above) of "apparently" was wise. GNT Round 6, Bd 11 Knockout Section N/S (Melbourne 2) vs E/W (Perth2) Dealer S, nil vul. 84 Q 7653 AQ10963 Q109752 J3 J8 AK1097 K1098 AQJ42 4 K AK6 65432 - J8752 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Cooper Ebery Christie Gold - - - 2H* 2S** 3D*** X Pass Pass Pass I believe that the following facts are not disputed: - 2H was a multi-meaning bid - one of the options was a weak two-suiter of (hearts plus a minor). - E/W are a highly practised long-term partnership with a clear agreement that 2S was a transfer to clubs. West forgot and misbid. East forgot so he failed to alert. - North intended 3D as correctable - South thought 3D was not correctable. The reason for this is unclear. It is rumoured that he had heard E/W before the match say that they play transfers against NS's mickey-mouse twos, or that he had seen this on E/W's Convention Card, but as the Director's ruling was dependent on North not South, this aspect seems not to have been investigated. - East was happy. North went down 1100. After the hand, West who had woken up and remembered that they played transfers, called the Director as required by Law. The Director established that 2S definitely is a transfer to clubs in E/W's system. North said that if he had been alerted that West had clubs, he would never have called 3D; it was 100% clear to pass 2S if that bid showed clubs. So: - NS had a mixup and went for 1100. These things happen and are generally regarded as certainly not being wild or gambling. - 2S should have been alerted so there was an infraction by E/W. - N/S would never have gone for 1100 had there been no infraction (the Directors - yes they do consult each other - accepted North's statement as being logical and accurate). The Director therefore decided to award an Adjusted Score: - North would have passed 2S. - assuming (for now) that neither E nor W nor both wake up and remember that 2S showed clubs, then, depending on E/W's methods (possibly complex, they used to play Forcing Pass Relay for about a decade), East might call 3H or 4S or 3D or 4H or 3NT. - the players were playing other hands now, so to analyse the many convolutions adequately, the TD would need to interrupt E/W at least once to ask what their methods are after the transfers; should the TD have done so? - the continuations by E/W are almost impossible to determine with any accuracy. They might reach 4S (down 2) or 3NT (down 4) or a slam (doubled by South) or 5D (down 2). E/W might even reach a doubled club contract after West rebids spades and East assumes West is 7-5 in clubs and spades. N/S might end up playing the hand. There are many possible follow-ups after East's five possible responses to 2S. The Director considered most of these things to be possible and none of them to be at all likely. In Australia the TD is not allowed to use Law 12C3. It was also possible that N/S would find a way to go for 1100 or 1400; N/S had already demonstrated that they were quite capable of getting their wires crossed. In other cases, one might look at N/S continuing their bidding with the aid of the correct explanation and E/W bidding on without such aid. This case almost feels like the reverse (or should that be "converse"?). In this case, N/S can hardly bid their cold 6C if they have the correct explanation, although this might not be relevant. One also could consider that either East or West might wake up at any moment. It is irrelevant that they did not wake up on the actual hand because in that case they did not have to think about the bidding; it is when they do think that one or both might wake up. The TD therefore thought that this was a rare case where it was impossible to predict the course of the auction if N/S had been given correct information, so he cancelled the table result. Question A Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? The Directing staff then removed Bd 11 from play at the other table (it had not been played there yet). Question B Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? Was this an error in procedure? The Director ruled that NS (non-offenders) would receive +3 IMPS for the half-unplayed Board 11 and that EW (offenders) would receive 0 imps for the half-unplayed Board 11. The AC reinstated the table result of NS -1100. I don't know why with 100% certainty, but I am told that the AC believed that NS damaged themselves independently of any infraction. The Director still disagrees; he says that had there been no infraction, it is clear that NS would not have played in 3DX. He thought that this is a particularly difficult case and that his ruling was acceptable and legal but far from ideal. The AC noted that there was no result at the other table to compare with. They asked the Directors to determine a result at the other table. The Directors (or possibly someone else) calculated that the average of the six scores in the other three knockout matches was 100 to NS. There were another 40 tables playing the same computer-dealt Bd 11 in the Swiss Repechage (my table was 4S -2), but these scores on Bd 11 were not handed in - only each match's result in IMPs is handed in - so they could not be included in the calculation. The EW team were told that their 16 IMP loss of the match had been altered by a gain of (100 + 1100 = 15 imps) plus a gain of 3 imps when the Adjusted Score was removed, so the EW team had won by 2 IMPs. Being strong believers in equity, the EW team asked the Convenor to offer the NS team a 4-board playoff, possibly because otherwise the match result might be regarded as having been dependent on almost random factors. The Convenor did so and the NS team, whose captain is 25 years old, faced with a choice of losing the match or of playing off, naturally chose the latter. The rest is as described earlier. Opinions are sought. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 07:05:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIK4ab26115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:04:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAIK4TH26110 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:04:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from Isis33.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis33.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.33]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GN00091SI4MEL@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:58:00 +0100 (MET) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:57:57 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re[2]: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions In-reply-to: <01be01c1703f$5865c640$59dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Reply-to: Richard Bley Message-id: <1122407699.20011118205757@uni-duesseldorf.de> Organization: Univ. =?UNKNOWN?Q?D=FCsseldorf?= MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53l) Educational Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01be01c1703f$5865c640$59dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Peter, Sunday, November 18, 2001, 3:43:10 PM, you wrote: PG> The hand can be found in Daily Bulletin #6 which should appear PG> at www.abf.com.au/events/spnot/2001/bull6.pdf but the Bulletin PG> wouldn't appear on screen when I just tried it. So here's the PG> full hand and story. This is not the official write-up but can PG> be expected to be at least 99% accurate. My earlier PG> emphasis (above) of "apparently" was wise. PG> GNT Round 6, Bd 11 Knockout Section PG> N/S (Melbourne 2) vs E/W (Perth2) PG> Dealer S, nil vul. PG> 84 PG> Q PG> 7653 PG> AQ10963 PG> Q109752 J3 PG> J8 AK1097 PG> K1098 AQJ42 PG> 4 K PG> AK6 PG> 65432 PG> - PG> J8752 PG> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH PG> Cooper Ebery Christie Gold PG> - - - 2H* PG> 2S** 3D*** X Pass PG> Pass Pass PG> I believe that the following facts are not disputed: PG> - 2H was a multi-meaning bid - one of the options was PG> a weak two-suiter of (hearts plus a minor). PG> - E/W are a highly practised long-term partnership with a clear PG> agreement that 2S was a transfer to clubs. West forgot and PG> misbid. East forgot so he failed to alert. PG> - North intended 3D as correctable PG> - South thought 3D was not correctable. The reason for this is PG> unclear. It is rumoured that he had heard E/W before the match PG> say that they play transfers against NS's mickey-mouse twos, PG> or that he had seen this on E/W's Convention Card, but as the PG> Director's ruling was dependent on North not South, this aspect PG> seems not to have been investigated. PG> - East was happy. PG> North went down 1100. After the hand, West who had woken up PG> and remembered that they played transfers, called the Director PG> as required by Law. The Director established that 2S definitely PG> is a transfer to clubs in E/W's system. North said that if he had PG> been alerted that West had clubs, he would never have called PG> 3D; it was 100% clear to pass 2S if that bid showed clubs. PG> So: PG> - NS had a mixup and went for 1100. These things happen and PG> are generally regarded as certainly not being wild or gambling. PG> - 2S should have been alerted so there was an infraction by E/W. PG> - N/S would never have gone for 1100 had there been no PG> infraction (the Directors - yes they do consult each other - PG> accepted North's statement as being logical and accurate). PG> The Director therefore decided to award an Adjusted Score: PG> - North would have passed 2S. PG> - assuming (for now) that neither E nor W nor both wake up PG> and remember that 2S showed clubs, then, depending on PG> E/W's methods (possibly complex, they used to play Forcing PG> Pass Relay for about a decade), East might call 3H or 4S or PG> 3D or 4H or 3NT. PG> - the players were playing other hands now, so to analyse the PG> many convolutions adequately, the TD would need to interrupt PG> E/W at least once to ask what their methods are after the PG> transfers; should the TD have done so? PG> - the continuations by E/W are almost impossible to determine PG> with any accuracy. They might reach 4S (down 2) or 3NT (down 4) or a PG> slam (doubled by South) or 5D (down 2). E/W might even PG> reach a doubled club contract after West rebids spades and PG> East assumes West is 7-5 in clubs and spades. N/S might PG> end up playing the hand. There are many possible follow-ups PG> after East's five possible responses to 2S. The Director PG> considered most of these things to be possible and none of PG> them to be at all likely. In Australia the TD is not allowed to PG> use Law 12C3. It was also possible that N/S would find a way PG> to go for 1100 or 1400; N/S had already demonstrated that PG> they were quite capable of getting their wires crossed. PG> In other cases, one might look at N/S continuing their bidding with the PG> aid of the correct explanation and E/W bidding on without PG> such aid. This case almost feels like the reverse (or should that be PG> "converse"?). In this case, N/S can hardly bid their cold 6C if they PG> have the correct explanation, although this might not be relevant. PG> One also could consider that either East or West might wake up PG> at any moment. It is irrelevant that they did not wake up on the PG> actual hand because in that case they did not have to think about the PG> bidding; it is when they do think that one or both might wake up. PG> The TD therefore thought that this was a rare case where it was PG> impossible to predict the course of the auction if N/S had been PG> given correct information, so he cancelled the table result. PG> Question A PG> Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? No; of course not. PG> The Directing staff then removed Bd 11 from play at the other PG> table (it had not been played there yet). PG> Question B PG> Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? Was this an PG> error in procedure? Yes. And an error according to L82C. PG> The Director ruled that NS (non-offenders) would receive PG> +3 IMPS for the half-unplayed Board 11 and that EW (offenders) PG> would receive 0 imps for the half-unplayed Board 11. Both sides are non-offender. PG> The AC reinstated the table result of NS -1100. I don't know PG> why with 100% certainty, but I am told that the AC believed PG> that NS damaged themselves independently of any infraction. PG> The Director still disagrees; he says that had there been PG> no infraction, it is clear that NS would not have played in 3DX. PG> He thought that this is a particularly difficult case and that his PG> ruling was acceptable and legal but far from ideal. Hmm. Maybe the AC argued as follows: There can be no damage, because the given explanation don´t differ from the hand. So they used L40C in the way, that there was no damage. But maybe S was damaged by reading the CC or hearing the discussion. But in both cases he should have a good case for not seeing any alerts from his opp. Were there screens in use? I guess not. PG> The AC noted that there was no result at the other table to PG> compare with. They asked the Directors to determine a PG> result at the other table. The Directors (or possibly someone PG> else) calculated that the average of the six scores in the other PG> three knockout matches was 100 to NS. There were another PG> 40 tables playing the same computer-dealt Bd 11 in the Swiss Repechage PG> (my table was 4S -2), but these scores on Bd 11 PG> were not handed in - only each match's result in IMPs is handed PG> in - so they could not be included in the calculation. PG> The EW team were told that their 16 IMP loss of the match had been PG> altered by a gain of (100 + 1100 = 15 imps) plus a gain PG> of 3 imps when the Adjusted Score was removed, so the EW PG> team had won by 2 IMPs. Being strong believers in equity, the PG> EW team asked the Convenor to offer the NS team a 4-board playoff, PG> possibly because otherwise the match result might be regarded as having PG> been dependent on almost random factors. The Convenor did so and the NS PG> team, whose captain is PG> 25 years old, faced with a choice of losing the match or of PG> playing off, naturally chose the latter. PG> The rest is as described earlier. Opinions are sought. What a mess... -- Cheers Richard mailto:bley@uni-duesseldorf.de -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 07:45:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIKjOi26565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:45:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAIKjGH26542 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:45:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-236-184.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.236.184] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fAIKcnP13663 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:38:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003301c17071$b243fce0$b8ec75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> <3BF3A95D.2341FCE5@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:26:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > EW have MI about S's hand. This MI might possibly > > get resolved by S's correct explanations of N's bids. > > > > It might. But it's possibly too late already. Or not > important and resolved before the lead anyway. A fact is > that South is (by L45D2) prohibited from clearing up the > picture. So imagining some method by which it gets resolved > is against the Laws, not helping them. L45D2?? With respect to 75D2, which is probably the law you wanted to refer to, 75D2 does not state that partner has to mislead opponents such that they can't possibly get the correct explanation. 75D2 simply states that partner is not allowed to correct a false explanation during the bidding. So the following bidding plus explanations is quite possible: S N 2D(1) 3H(2) 4H(3) 4NT(4) 5D 5S(5) [...] (1) Intended as weak-two, alerted by N as '19-20 NT' (2) Intended as transfer to spades, not alerted by S, because 3H is natural (3) S raises N's hearts, N alerts as super-accept (4) Intended as RKCB on spades, alerted as RKCB on hearts (5) Two aces are missing, hence N tries to stop in 5S, but S alerts 5S as asking for the HQ ... Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 08:32:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAILWPk29080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:32:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAILWJH29076 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:32:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-012.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.204]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18108 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:25:42 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:25:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:25:55 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, Your opinions please. Team scoring You are a very good player (expert) You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. Partner rebids 2H. Is Pass a Logical Action? As you may have guessed, partner thought for a long time before he bid 2H. If you bid 2S now, has it been suggested over Pass by the hesitation? Regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 09:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIMUiF29114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:30:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAIMUcH29110 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:30:39 +1100 (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 fAIMO0m16767; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:24:00 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> References: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:19:52 -0500 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Cc: "'bridge-laws mailing list" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:25 PM +0000 11/18/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Hi all, >Your opinions please. > >Team scoring >You are a very good player (expert) Ha! I wish. :-) >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. >Partner rebids 2H. > >Is Pass a Logical Action? No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S (so he has at least 6 schmoints) and you have 19. Your choices are: 4C (splinter), 3D (showing 5-5), some number of spades (not 2, as you're too strong for that), and some number of hearts (not 3, same reason). >As you may have guessed, partner thought for a long time before he bid 2H. >If you bid 2S now, has it been suggested over Pass by the hesitation? Not on the rationale above. But then I'm probably wrong - see "ha" several lines up. :-) To me, the hesitation suggests partner has 5 spades, and we have a double fit. I think 3D is not a good choice, because the suit is weak. I choose 4C, which happens to be the bid I was going to make anyway - but I don't think it's suggested over another (4H? 4S?) by the hesitation. OTOH, I'm probably wrong about that, too. :-) OTGH, partner's minumum rebid suggests game is probably all there is, so maybe 4C is, what's the word? unsuggested? dis-something-or-other?, by the bid. In which case I should be in *less* trouble for choosing it. I think. :-) 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/AwUBO/g1B72UW3au93vOEQJStgCglQ9r4Ge0l8otp2Ct83qaCNXLCsUAoPlj 1nsXjPBJ62cVpcubkVr5aCq1 =IptN -----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 Nov 19 09:42:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAIMfY529130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:41:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi (pl200.saunalahti.fi [195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAIMfSH29126 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:41:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-117-239-248.citysurf.jippii.de [194.117.239.248] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id fAIMZ3P27725 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:35:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <018d01c17081$ee57ad20$b8ec75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> <3BF3A856.E1CDAB8E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:39:41 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > Assume that 2D 'mexican' is what N plays with > > the hog, and that S does not know 2D 'mexican' > > at all ;-). > > > > I have imagined this could happen as well. I suppose I > would urge South to say "I don't remember what that response > means" without revealing to North that this is because he > does not play Mexican in the first place. L75A, L75C3. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 19:15:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJ8EaI03414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:14:36 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJ8EUH03410 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:14:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-63-84.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.63.84] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 165jRG-000B1k-00; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:05:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c170d1$6b45d920$543f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Eidt" , References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <165Q9N-23jUX2C@fwd01.sul.t-online.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions; here: #3+4 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:45:33 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 18, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions; here: #3+4 > > Question 4 > > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC > > determining a score for a table which never > > played the board in question? > > > > In this case the AC did not only bid and play the > never existing hand in the closed room but even > the never played hand in the open room. > > AND ... in this case noone had the feeling, that > the AC made in wrong. > +=+ I do not think I should comment. Here is my comment:- Law 12A2... "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" Law 12C1.... "when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained" Law 82C...... ".. incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be played normally... " The correct solution for the Director lies here somewhere, and also that for the AC. The same laws should apply in Australia, too, where I think the case should still be referred to the national authority, by the Director, in order to set the precedents for the future. ~ 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 Nov 19 20:46:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJ9k0w03449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:46:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAJ9jsH03445 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:45:55 +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 ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:39:20 +0100 Message-ID: <015a01c170de$2059ef20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <200111150107.UAA21553@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:39:46 +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: Steve Willner To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > > From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) > > I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results out > > of the comparison for the other pairs. > > Why? Since all other NS's can get a (clearly undeserved) advantage over all other EW's (or the other way around). The difference between bridge and any other competition is that the result in one game does effect the result in all the others. If we would rule a umpire's error in baseball and say that both the Tigers and the Yankees have been declared to win the match that they played against each other, this only results in a slight advantage to these two teams. It does not influence how the Blue Jays are ranked relative to the Twins. In bridge, the error in New York may result in Minnesota beating Toronto when Toronto has scored more runs. It's that last part that I suggested to take out. > I've always expected that an _assigned_ adjusted score should be > treated identically to a real score. Yes, in extreme cases you can > produce odd results, but nothing else is any fairer. Any different > rule just produces a different, arguably unfair, result. > -- OK. May be it was good as an idea, but not one that should be implemented ;o) Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 21:37:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJAaqX07332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:36:52 +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 (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJAakH07328 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:36:47 +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 LAA04597; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:28:37 +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 LAA05406; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:30:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011119112738.00a96440@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:30:48 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , "Fearghal O'Boyle" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Cc: "'bridge-laws mailing list" In-Reply-To: References: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:19 18/11/2001 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > >Partner rebids 2H. > > > >Is Pass a Logical Action? > >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S (so he has at >least 6 schmoints) and you have 19. Your choices are: 4C (splinter), >3D (showing 5-5), some number of spades (not 2, as you're too strong >for that), and some number of hearts (not 3, same reason). AG : interesting. Ed seems to think that 2S migfht be a minimum action. I suppose many Americans, under K-S influence, would disagree (bid 2S over 1S with a 3541 minimum). Thus, my 2S (the bid that I found obvious when I responded to Fearghal) was also intended to be very much forward-going. Also, some play 3C, here, as 4th suit, and it would be a possible choice. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 21:59:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJAx6107350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:59:06 +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 fAJAx0H07346 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:59:01 +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 ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:52:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01c001c170e8$55df36a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <200111150107.UAA21553@cfa183.harvard.edu> <015a01c170de$2059ef20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: [BLML] Law 12C2 too: was: To many VP's; was: Law 81C again Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:52:51 +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: Rik Terveen To: BLML Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Willner > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:07 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again > > > > > From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) > > > I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results > out > > > of the comparison for the other pairs. > > > > Why? > > Since all other NS's can get a (clearly undeserved) advantage over all > other EW's (or the other way around). > The difference between bridge and any other competition is that the > result in one game does effect the result in all the others. If we > would rule a umpire's error in baseball and say that both the Tigers > and the Yankees have been declared to win the match that they played > against each other, this only results in a slight advantage to these > two teams. It does not influence how the Blue Jays are ranked relative > to the Twins. In bridge, the error in New York may result in Minnesota > beating Toronto when Toronto has scored more runs. It's that last part > that I suggested to take out. > > > I've always expected that an _assigned_ adjusted score should be > > treated identically to a real score. Yes, in extreme cases you can > > produce odd results, but nothing else is any fairer. Any different > > rule just produces a different, arguably unfair, result. > > -- > > OK. May be it was good as an idea, but not one that should be > implemented ;o) > > Greetings, > > Rik > When I thought about this a little more, the following dawned on me: 'Would it be possible that this is what the mysterious last sentence of L12C2 means?' This last sentence is: 'The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. ' IOW: The scores may be added to the ranking in total-points and then be matchpointed or the scores can remain outside the ranking and matchpoints are awarded directly (and thus the result at the table is not affecting the other results). In a matchpoint pairs, the two methods make little difference and can change the relative standings between two pairs by at most 1 US MP (where halves are allowed) or 2 European MP's. In an IMP pairs event whether it is Butler, IMPs across or anything else, the difference can be enormous (or nothing). IMHO, a TD's error would be the occasion to assign matchpoints (IMPs) directly to prevent the result at a table that was fouled up by a third party from influencing the scores at the others. An other case might be when the board is unplayable since a player overheard the result. Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 22:06:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJB6iF07424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:06:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJB6aH07397 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:06:37 +1100 (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 fAJB00o24841 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:00:03 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAJAxxY18146 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:59:59 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:59:59 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01422 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:59:59 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA02332 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:59:58 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:59:58 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111191059.KAA02332@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > > >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > > >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > > >Partner rebids 2H. > > > > > >Is Pass a Logical Action? > > > >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S (so he has at > >least 6 schmoints) and you have 19. Your choices are: 4C (splinter), > >3D (showing 5-5), some number of spades (not 2, as you're too strong > >for that), and some number of hearts (not 3, same reason). > > AG : interesting. Ed seems to think that 2S migfht be a minimum action. I > suppose many Americans, under K-S influence, would disagree (bid 2S over 1S > with a 3541 minimum). Thus, my 2S (the bid that I found obvious when I > responded to Fearghal) was also intended to be very much forward-going. > Also, some play 3C, here, as 4th suit, and it would be a possible choice. In England, 1H-1S-2D-2H could be a minimum hand without real preference for hearts. Certainly 4=2=2=5 is possible, even 4=1=2=6 is possible. How many tricks is this hand making opposite Kxxx-xx-xx-Kxxxx ? I play that 2S now would show extras (better than 1H-1S-2S), and would be sufficient on this hand. I would like to consult some players, but I think pass is a LA. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 22:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJBapa13692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:36:51 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJBajH13674 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:36:45 +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 MAA22525; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:27:03 +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 MAA01581; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:30:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011119121926.024563c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:30:59 +0100 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again In-Reply-To: <015a01c170de$2059ef20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <200111150107.UAA21553@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 10:39 19/11/2001 +0100, Rik Terveen wrote: >Since all other NS's can get a (clearly undeserved) advantage over all >other EW's (or the other way around). >The difference between bridge and any other competition is that the >result in one game does effect the result in all the others. If we >would rule a umpire's error in baseball and say that both the Tigers >and the Yankees have been declared to win the match that they played >against each other, this only results in a slight advantage to these >two teams. In bridge, the error in New York may result in Minnesota >beating Toronto when Toronto has scored more runs. It's that last part >that I suggested to take out. AG : it is certainly not restricted to bridge. It happens (or at least might happen) whenever final rankings are based on a sum of ranks (or points associated with ranks) in sub-events. Sports where this might happen include motor racing, figure skating, yachting and strength contests. The phenomenon may also arise when splitting ties involves considering results by opponents, as is the case in most chess events. Theoreticians of op research call this 'binary dependence' and it is unavoidable given the conditions. The only ways out are : 1) not using ranks but absolute values (like time in cycling or brute notes in artistic sports) 2) spacing regularly the points attributed to ranks : this at least diminishes the risk (ie, the frequency of dependence cases). Matchpoint scoring satisfies this second condition. Motor racing scoring tables do not, and at least one F1 championship (Mansell vs Piquet) suffered from this problem (the disqualification of another competitor changed the end result of those two) Also, and one olympics medal (in skating) was thusly affected in Nagano. 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 Nov 19 22:42:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJBgVe14457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:42:31 +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 fAJBgPH14453 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:42:26 +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 ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:35:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01d801c170ee$673a83e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:36:17 +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: Fearghal O'Boyle To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:25 PM Subject: [BLML] Here we go again > Hi all, > Your opinions please. > > Team scoring > You are a very good player (expert) > You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > Partner rebids 2H. > > Is Pass a Logical Action? It depends on the system used. If you open four card majors, I don't think pass is an alternative. Usually, you've just discovered a fit and a game try is normal. However, if you play five card majors, which I assume, the answer is 'Yes'. Most of the time, I would bid 2S. It describes my hand. it is forward going and game is not at all impossible. However, if we play against lesser opponents or we would be ahead in the match, I would not risk another bid on what may be a horrible misfit at this vulnerability. After all, partner could have S xxxx H xx D Qx C KJxxx and 2H is the last chance to go plus. > > As you may have guessed, partner thought for a long time before he bid 2H. > If you bid 2S now, has it been suggested over Pass by the hesitation? A difficult question: What has partner been thinking about? Did he have S Kxxx H xx D KQxx C xx and he didn't want to pass since it ends the auction while he is too weak for 3D? Did he think about 2NT with S KQxx H x D KQx C Txxxx? When I think about it most if the time partner will have extra's when he 's huddling in this situation. With a minimum, you pass or prefer 2H. No reason to think. The hesitation, therefore, suggests values, which reduces the odds that 2H is your last chance to go plus to a very small number. It makes bidding a favorite. > > Regards, > Fearghal. > > Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 19 23:54:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJCsCr14492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:54:12 +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 fAJCs6H14488 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:54:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-196.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.196]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJClKB29728 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:47:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8F727.3763AD8C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:12:23 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@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: > > > I am glad to see that Grattan is with me at least on the > > subject that the different explanation of partner, while UI > > for further auction, is authorized information for the > > purposes of the selction of the explanation to be given of > > the auction so far and further on. > > > +=+ But this is not in doubt. It is not illegal to possess > UI; it is illegal (Law 16) to base a call or play on it, or > (Law 73C) to take from it any advantage that might > accrue to the possessor's side. +=+ > > No, it is not in doubt, not by you or me, or perhaps a majority on the list. But there is a minority who keep attacking the dWS because it would mean explaining according to a heard explanation, which would be "use of UI". So once and for all, that argument is false. -- 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 Nov 19 23:55:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJCt7014504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:55:07 +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 fAJCt1H14500 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:55:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-196.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.196]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJClaB29873 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:47:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8F7F8.516F2295@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:15:52 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@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: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 > > > > > Now answer me this, Grattan. > > > > We are on an appeals committee, you and I. > > > +=+ "Modified rapture" +=+ > > > This South has just explained his partner's 4He bid as > > "hearts". before the Committee, he tells us that he knew > > full well that his partner was bidding a transfer. His > > partner really has spades, and is also stating that he > > intended it as spades. South offers us a part of his system > > notes, indicating that 2Di is natural, weak, but with no > > mention of a response of 4He to it, stating that it must be > > hearts by consequence. > > > > Now you (and I) need to convince our colleagues on the > > committee that this South did not give misinformation. Do > > you think we'll succeed (yes I know we will - because they > > value our legal opinion). Do you feel good about it ? > > > +=+ I would only propose this to our colleagues if I were > satisfied the evidence was good that Hearts shows Hearts. > I would want to know a little from North about his > understanding of the auction. But, if North has misbid, > South has explained correctly according to system, > why should our very able colleagues have a problem? +=+ Perhaps because North has spades, and South knows this. > > > > Now turn it around. South explains 4He as transfer, and > > then does the ethical thing and passes. West is asleep and > > passes as well. They score -500 in 4He-10, and are asking > > for -2210 for 7He. We find that 2Di was misexplained. We > > are ready to rule on that first misexplanation, but we find > > that West should have done something after the strange > > pass. Do we rule on the second misinformation ? When the > > player has correctly informed opponents of the (intended) > > meaning of 4Sp ? Do you really think we won't get overruled > > by the other members of the Committee. > > > +=+ Have I got it right that South misbids, North explains > the bid according to system, and South explains North's bid > also in accordance with the partnership agreement, but > then (properly) retreats to his original misbid in passing > the 4H bid (on the basis that it is a self sufficient suit > opposite a Weak Two)? > If so, to quote Espinosa, "WHAT is the infraction"? No, the above question includes "2Di was misexplained". That means that now 4He is also "misexplained" as transfer, because in the system it would appear to be natural. But of course South has correctly explained partner's intended meaning. > I defend application of the laws as they are. I do not > defend the laws for their immaculate perfection and it > is my intention in the General Laws Review to recall, or seek > out, as many of their imperfections as I can and try to > persuade my colleagues to create better, or different, > law in such cases. ~ G ~ +=+ -- 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 Nov 20 00:02:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJD1wR14528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:01:58 +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 fAJD1oH14517 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:01:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-206.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.206]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJCtJB03947 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:55:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8F727.3763AD8C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:12:23 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@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: > > > I am glad to see that Grattan is with me at least on the > > subject that the different explanation of partner, while UI > > for further auction, is authorized information for the > > purposes of the selction of the explanation to be given of > > the auction so far and further on. > > > +=+ But this is not in doubt. It is not illegal to possess > UI; it is illegal (Law 16) to base a call or play on it, or > (Law 73C) to take from it any advantage that might > accrue to the possessor's side. +=+ > > No, it is not in doubt, not by you or me, or perhaps a majority on the list. But there is a minority who keep attacking the dWS because it would mean explaining according to a heard explanation, which would be "use of UI". So once and for all, that argument is false. -- 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 Nov 20 00:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJD25c14536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:05 +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 fAJD1rH14521 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:01:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-206.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.206]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJCtMB03984 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:55:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8F7F8.516F2295@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:15:52 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@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: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] De Wael School on San Diego 2 > > > > > Now answer me this, Grattan. > > > > We are on an appeals committee, you and I. > > > +=+ "Modified rapture" +=+ > > > This South has just explained his partner's 4He bid as > > "hearts". before the Committee, he tells us that he knew > > full well that his partner was bidding a transfer. His > > partner really has spades, and is also stating that he > > intended it as spades. South offers us a part of his system > > notes, indicating that 2Di is natural, weak, but with no > > mention of a response of 4He to it, stating that it must be > > hearts by consequence. > > > > Now you (and I) need to convince our colleagues on the > > committee that this South did not give misinformation. Do > > you think we'll succeed (yes I know we will - because they > > value our legal opinion). Do you feel good about it ? > > > +=+ I would only propose this to our colleagues if I were > satisfied the evidence was good that Hearts shows Hearts. > I would want to know a little from North about his > understanding of the auction. But, if North has misbid, > South has explained correctly according to system, > why should our very able colleagues have a problem? +=+ Perhaps because North has spades, and South knows this. > > > > Now turn it around. South explains 4He as transfer, and > > then does the ethical thing and passes. West is asleep and > > passes as well. They score -500 in 4He-10, and are asking > > for -2210 for 7He. We find that 2Di was misexplained. We > > are ready to rule on that first misexplanation, but we find > > that West should have done something after the strange > > pass. Do we rule on the second misinformation ? When the > > player has correctly informed opponents of the (intended) > > meaning of 4Sp ? Do you really think we won't get overruled > > by the other members of the Committee. > > > +=+ Have I got it right that South misbids, North explains > the bid according to system, and South explains North's bid > also in accordance with the partnership agreement, but > then (properly) retreats to his original misbid in passing > the 4H bid (on the basis that it is a self sufficient suit > opposite a Weak Two)? > If so, to quote Espinosa, "WHAT is the infraction"? No, the above question includes "2Di was misexplained". That means that now 4He is also "misexplained" as transfer, because in the system it would appear to be natural. But of course South has correctly explained partner's intended meaning. > I defend application of the laws as they are. I do not > defend the laws for their immaculate perfection and it > is my intention in the General Laws Review to recall, or seek > out, as many of their imperfections as I can and try to > persuade my colleagues to create better, or different, > law in such cases. ~ G ~ +=+ -- 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 Nov 20 00:02:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJD2Bu14543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAJD1vH14527 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:01:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-206.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.206]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJCtPB04012 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:55:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8F8B4.E2EC37D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:19:00 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011114172403.00b0b100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115090616.00a95120@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011115104733.00b1f9e0@127.0.0.1> <000b01c16eaa$f42efba0$9c42063e@pacific> <3BF532B3.F8F7065E@village.uunet.be> <000e01c1702c$505c9040$3e4a063e@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: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > > > > Now turn it around. South explains 4He as transfer, and > > then does the ethical thing and passes. West is asleep and > > passes as well. They score -500 in 4He-10, and are asking > > for -2210 for 7He. We find that 2Di was misexplained. We > > are ready to rule on that first misexplanation, but we find > > that West should have done something after the strange > > pass. Do we rule on the second misinformation ? When the > > player has correctly informed opponents of the (intended) > > meaning of 4Sp ? Do you really think we won't get overruled > > by the other members of the Committee. > > This is also something that I have often had trouble with when ruling with screens. Say East explains differently than West. We don't have evidence that East is telling the truth, so we rule MI there. But suppose we neither have evidence that West is telling the truth. Can we rule MI on both explanations. About the same call ? Maybe the Laws should include a phrase saying that in the absence of evidence, the meaning that accords to the hand should be the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 00:02:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJD2Gd14544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:17 +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 fAJD21H14533 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-206.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.206]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJCtTB04061 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:55:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8FC68.A5E7BE90@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:34:48 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> <3BF3A95D.2341FCE5@village.uunet.be> <003301c17071$b243fce0$b8ec75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > L45D2?? With respect to 75D2, which > is probably the law you wanted to refer to, 75D2 does not > state that partner has to mislead opponents such that they > can't possibly get the correct explanation. > 75D2 simply states that partner is not allowed > to correct a false explanation during the bidding. > Well, by explaning the next bid totally contrary to intention, partner can easily deduce that his previous explanation is wrong. "nor may he indicate in any manner". > So the following bidding plus explanations is quite > possible: > > S N > 2D(1) 3H(2) > 4H(3) 4NT(4) > 5D 5S(5) > [...] > > (1) Intended as weak-two, alerted by N as '19-20 NT' You are not stating which of the two explanations is the correct one, and I believe this is not important. In your interpretation however, it is important, since you are apparently saying that South is right, since he keeps on explaining as if he is. > (2) Intended as transfer to spades, not alerted by S, > because 3H is natural dWS : alerted by S, because it is intended as transfer. North does not know that South has diamonds in stead of 19-20. > (3) S raises N's hearts, N alerts as super-accept S has probably acted super-ethically. N has no idea anything is wrong. > (4) Intended as RKCB on spades, alerted as RKCB on hearts alerted and probably not asked. > (5) Two aces are missing, hence N tries to stop in > 5S, but S alerts 5S as asking for the HQ ... > or: North is very amazed at the lack of aces, and works out that S does not have 19-20. He realizes his mistake and bids 5H. In your scenario, this is unlikely. North knows (from UI) that he has misinterpreted 2Di. He must bend over backwards not to use this, and bidding 5Sp is the correct ethical thing to do. North has no chance. In my scenario, if North does realize, he has done so without UI. He cannot be blamed for bidding 5He and saving some points. I believe that South is entitled to avoid giving UI to North. In fact, by my interpretation of L75D2, he is obliged to act in this manner. Please realize that all that I am doing is giving advice to South. I'm not saying that his explanations can not be construed as MI. They can. But we should give South the opportunity of making North realize all by himself, without South's help. Furthermore, the advice that I am giving South is independent of who was right in the first place. South should bid according to South's system, and explain according to North's. Let the TD figure out afterwards what NS-system 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 Tue Nov 20 00:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJD2Kr14547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:21 +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 fAJD24H14537 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:02:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-206.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.206]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAJCtWB04094 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:55:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BF8FF77.C18BC6DB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:47:51 +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] De Wael School on San Diego 2 References: <3BF28110.52E0CA43@village.uunet.be> <001001c16d41$0f257760$dcec75c2@rabbit> <3BF3A856.E1CDAB8E@village.uunet.be> <018d01c17081$ee57ad20$b8ec75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > > Assume that 2D 'mexican' is what N plays with > > > the hog, and that S does not know 2D 'mexican' > > > at all ;-). > > > > > > > I have imagined this could happen as well. I suppose I > > would urge South to say "I don't remember what that response > > means" without revealing to North that this is because he > > does not play Mexican in the first place. > > L75A, OK, so the opponents don't have the info available. L12 will come to the rescue. > L75C3. > contrast L75D2, which says that this is not allowed. -- 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 Nov 20 00:34:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJDXnl17809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:33:49 +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 fAJDXfH17790 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAJDR8A01166 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:27:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again 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: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Fearghal wrote: > Team scoring > You are a very good player (expert) > You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > Partner rebids 2H. > > Is Pass a Logical Action? While it might be the winning call I regard it as a long-term losing action and wouldn't consider it an LA for decent players by EBU standards. > As you may have guessed, partner thought for a long time before he bid > 2H. If you bid 2S now, has it been suggested over Pass by the > hesitation? With most of my partners 2H after a long pass is probably based on a 4234 minimum giving false preference. I know that after a tank they tend to strain for a constructive bid in an attempt to minimise my UI problems. I wouldn't see 2S as suggested (assuming 2D is non-forcing). My answers, like the original questions, are in the wrong order:-) 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 Nov 20 00:55:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJDtMW22755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:55:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oflmta01bw.bigpond.com (oflmta01bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.21] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJDtHH22740 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:55:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.87]) by oflmta01bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GN1W0B00.0RT for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:55:23 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-157.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.157]) by bwmam07.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0e 56/943871); 19 Nov 2001 23:48:43 Message-ID: <005501c17100$bc3c6d60$9dd436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:47:30 +1100 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: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>Your opinions please. >>Team scoring >>You are a very good player (expert) >>You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding >>S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - >>Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. >>Partner rebids 2H. Is Pass a Logical Action? > >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S No. Partner has not "supported" your suit. He has called your suit but his call is not "support" - 2H is merely "preference", e.g. with Qxxx, 10, 3, KJ9xxxx, what can partner do but bid 2H? 2S over 2H looks normal to me, covering as many bases as possible. I know some expert players who would probably pass 2H (non vul). If partner is likely to bid 2S over 2D with five decent spades and two hearts (this is possible as experts do partner non-experts), then Pass is most definitely a LA. Otherwise, add me to the "I think Pass is probably a LA" group. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 01:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJE42o24732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:04:02 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAJE3uH24711 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:03:56 +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 OAA26728; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:54:15 +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 OAA15912; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:57:22 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011119144838.0245a970@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:58:11 +0100 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again In-Reply-To: <01d801c170ee$673a83e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:36 19/11/2001 +0100, Rik Terveen wrote: >A difficult question: What has partner been thinking about? Did he >have S Kxxx H xx D KQxx C xx and he didn't want to pass since it ends >the auction while he is too weak for 3D? Did he think about 2NT with S >KQxx H x D KQx C Txxxx? When I think about it most if the time partner >will have extra's when he 's huddling in this situation. With a >minimum, you pass or prefer 2H. No reason to think. > >The hesitation, therefore, suggests values, which reduces the odds >that 2H is your last chance to go plus to a very small number. It >makes bidding a favorite. AG :IBTD. My experience is that most hesitationists (?) will have a poor hand for hearts (not as poor as your second example : a singleton heart doesn't make a preference very appetizing), and that extra values are not guaranteed ; or they will have a hand like your first example, when they want to keep the bidding open. what they won't have is a genuine heart raise, because they would knowthey'd better bid their hand in full after the tempo. Thus, partner might have : KJxxx xx xxx Kxx (2S is better) Qxxx xx xx Kxxxx (2H is high enough) Kxxx xxx Qxxx xx (same) Kxxxx Kx Jxx xxx (4S is not at all bad) Kxxx Jx Kxxx Jxx (3D is safer) But surely not : Kxxx Kxx Axx Txxx (would have bid 3H now) In other words, some of the hands would fare good if you rebid, some would not. Thus bidding isn't suggested over passing. I know the 75% rule isn't a panacaea, but here you would need to look hard to find someone desiring to pass on said hand. 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 Nov 20 01:10:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJEANg26001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12405.mail.yahoo.com (web12405.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAJEAHH25983 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:10:17 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <20011119140347.97464.qmail@web12405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.237.73.254] by web12405.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:03:47 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:03:47 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Zietman?= Subject: [BLML] Who's on first ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Brian Zietman, Jerusalem, Israel. As a new subscriber,I would like to thank all the participants for the lively discussions which I follow daily. I had an amusing incident last night while directing my local game. First two trick questions. 1)How do you become dummy after bidding INT all pass and no lead out of turn ? 2) What is mini-Stayman ? Here is how it happened : After South opening 1 NT- pass - pass - 1 Heart, I was called for the insufficient bid. South decided to accept the insufficient bid in order to use his later described as mini-Stayman convention and bid 1 Spade. After pass by West, North with only 2 spades but a heart stopper and 6 points decided to bid 1 NT which was passed out. I ruled that since South got in first with the 1 NT bid he is the designated declarer ! Cute eh? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 01:15:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJEFLh26740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:15:21 +1100 (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 fAJEFFH26723 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:15:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.3.160] (helo=[217.35.3.160]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 165p6K-00076l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:08:44 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111191059.KAA02332@tempest.npl.co.uk> References: <200111191059.KAA02332@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:08:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:25 PM +0000 11/18/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > >> > >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding >> > >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - >> > >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. >> > >Partner rebids 2H. >> > > > > > >Is Pass a Logical Action? I don't think so. Partner's hesitation before the 2H bid certainly suggests bidding rather than passing, but doesn't seem to suggest any particular bid over another. So, if we determine that Pass is not an LA, presumably opener is free to choose any bid he likes. At 17:19 18/11/2001 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >> >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S (so he has at >> >least 6 schmoints) and you have 19. Your choices are: 4C (splinter), >> >3D (showing 5-5), some number of spades (not 2, as you're too strong >> >for that), and some number of hearts (not 3, same reason). >> >> AG : interesting. Ed seems to think that 2S migfht be a minimum action. I >> suppose many Americans, under K-S influence, would disagree (bid 2S over 1S >> with a 3541 minimum). Thus, my 2S (the bid that I found obvious when I >> responded to Fearghal) was also intended to be very much forward-going. >> Also, some play 3C, here, as 4th suit, and it would be a possible choice. At 10:59 am +0000 19/11/01, Robin Barker wrote: >In England, 1H-1S-2D-2H could be a minimum hand without real preference >for hearts. I imagine this is true in most places. > Certainly 4=2=2=5 is possible, even 4=1=2=6 is possible. >How many tricks is this hand making opposite Kxxx-xx-xx-Kxxxx ? Even opposite that nightmare hand, 2S is not such a terrible spot. > >I play that 2S now would show extras (better than 1H-1S-2S), and would >be sufficient on this hand. > >I would like to consult some players, but I think pass is a LA. > >Robin Whilst I would expect little agreement as to what action to take, I would have thought it fairly clear to take *some* action. The hand has four first-round controls, 3.5 quick tricks, 5 losers, and is cold for game opposite Kxxxx Kx xx xxxx -- -- 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 Tue Nov 20 02:06:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJF3aI03630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:03:36 +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 fAJF3UH03626 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:03:31 +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 OAA09900 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:57:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:54:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again References: <200111191059.KAA02332@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200111191059.KAA02332@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 <200111191059.KAA02332@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> >> > >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding >> > >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - >> > >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. >> > >Partner rebids 2H. >> > > >> > >Is Pass a Logical Action? >> > >> >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S (so he has at >> >least 6 schmoints) and you have 19. Your choices are: 4C (splinter), >> >3D (showing 5-5), some number of spades (not 2, as you're too strong >> >for that), and some number of hearts (not 3, same reason). >> >> AG : interesting. Ed seems to think that 2S migfht be a minimum action. I >> suppose many Americans, under K-S influence, would disagree (bid 2S over 1S >> with a 3541 minimum). Thus, my 2S (the bid that I found obvious when I >> responded to Fearghal) was also intended to be very much forward-going. >> Also, some play 3C, here, as 4th suit, and it would be a possible choice. > >In England, 1H-1S-2D-2H could be a minimum hand without real preference >for hearts. Certainly 4=2=2=5 is possible, even 4=1=2=6 is possible. >How many tricks is this hand making opposite Kxxx-xx-xx-Kxxxx ? > >I play that 2S now would show extras (better than 1H-1S-2S), and would >be sufficient on this hand. I'd be surprised if anyone passed this, as 2S would not be forcing, just an attempt to find a reasonable spot. More to the point, if partner moves over 2S then game is looking probable. > >I would like to consult some players, but I think pass is a LA. > >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 03:50:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJGnqC08902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 03:49:52 +1100 (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 fAJGnkH08898 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 03:49:47 +1100 (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 LAA25725 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA10783 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:43:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:43:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111191643.LAA10783@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To many VP's; was: Law 81C again X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) > > > I think, however, that it would be a good idea to take the results > > > out of the comparison for the other pairs. > Since all other NS's can get a (clearly undeserved) advantage over all > other EW's (or the other way around). An assigned adjusted score affects all other results in the same line, but I don't see why the change is "clearly undeserved." > In bridge, the error in New York may result in Minnesota > beating Toronto when Toronto has scored more runs. It's that last part > that I suggested to take out. I don't understand the analogy. If I score +650, I'm beating all the +620's, and inserting a +1400 or -1400 at some other table doesn't change that. If the assigned score was correctly determined, there was a reasonable chance it could have happened absent some infraction. Why shouldn't my score be compared to it? You can perhaps see this more clearly with a L12C3 score, which represents someone's best judgment about what would have happened absent an irregularity. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 10:17:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJNGQX09500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:16:26 +1100 (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 fAJNGIH09493 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:16:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-155.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.155]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EA4E663096 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:09:45 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:08:05 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011116115858.00b16ba0@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau wrote: >>Does BLML agree? > >Not unanimously. Of the decisive answers posted, we currently appear to have one person in agreement and six who disagree. ISTM that this is as close to unanimity as you're likely to get on BLML! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 10:17:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAJNGPT09499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:16:25 +1100 (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 fAJNGGH09490 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:16:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-155.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.155]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BB93662FE8 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:09:43 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim - Paris 28/10/1, #4 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:08:03 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006b01c16f4e$d8a66400$2082b2c3@svk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Sergey Kapustin writes: > > I believe that this example can serve support Mr. Cohen's opinion about an > opportunity of change the Law to allow an option of calling the Director or > playing out the hand (see Minutes of the Meeting of the WBFLC, Paris, 28th > October 2001, #4). > In our case declarer has no UI from his claim. Let's give him his chance to > guess. > > Will be useful to direct this example on consideration to the WBF Laws > Drafting Subcommittee? > > Sergey The minutes refer to the possibility of a law change "to allow an option of calling the director or playing out the hand." If this really means playing on *without the calling the TD* (amending L9B1(a) as well as L68 etc), then IMO this would be a retrograde step. ISTM that more often than not UI will be imparted by the very fact that the claim has been contested and that the position can only be properly evaluated by the TD. The situation in this string is straightforward and it would clearly work well if the Laws permitted the TD, after hearing South's objection ("I still have a diamond winner"), simply to instruct declarer to play to the diamond lead from his faced hand. I suspect however that this example is very much the exception and that in many cases "playing on" would create more problems than it solved. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 12:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK1bs613706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:37:54 +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 fAK1blH13702 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:37:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (p-airlock065.esatclear.ie [194.165.169.65]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA04388 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:31:10 GMT From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: FW: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:37:33 -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 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi all, >Your opinions please. > >Team scoring >You are a very good player (expert) >You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding >S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - >Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. >Partner rebids 2H. > >Is Pass a Logical Action? [Karel - certainly from a bidding perspective pass is certainly LA. If say playing walshe pd may well bid a 4 card spade before a 6 card club suit. bidding on could lead to disaster. Pd has only shown preference for hearts (may even pairs and trying for the 110 vs 90 score). His bid is not encouraging in any way.] >As you may have guessed, partner thought for a long time before he bid 2H. >If you bid 2S now, has it been suggested over Pass by the hesitation? > [Karel - well in my opinion 2S should not be allowed. The pause must be indicating extra's. With a minimal hand pd would give prompt preference to 2H's. I'd say we are looking at a 5/6 card spade, 2 hearts, 2/3 diamonds, and the rest in clubs 10/11 count. Clubs probably weak unable to bid 2NT. 2S is certainly made much much easier by the UI] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 12:41:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK1f5L13796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:41:05 +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 fAK1ewH13768 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:40:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (p-airlock065.esatclear.ie [194.165.169.65]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA04962 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:34:21 GMT From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:40:45 -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 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs After several rounds of play this position was reached North S 9 H xx D xxx C x S J5 H xxx irrelevant D - C xx South S 643 H A D AQJ C - At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played. On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in dummy and thought W had SJ7 left). What is your ruling ?? When asked what line he would have taken he said spade to the nine and on the probable heart back he would ruff a heart. He would not go back via diamonds as West had led the diamond 2 and had signalled strongly twice for a diamond from partner (who had ignored him), indicating west was void in diamonds. Is this relevant to your ruling ?? I think there is some rule which goes something along the lines of "If you claim down x tricks and it infact transpires that you cannot infact lose the tricks claimed that you are allowed to claim down x-1 tricks. Or am I totally misinformed ?? 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 Nov 20 13:23:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK2NZA18836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:23:35 +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 fAK2NTH18832 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:23:30 +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 SAA09683; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:16:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200111200216.SAA09683@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:40:45 GMT." Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:16:55 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi All > > Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs > > After several rounds of play this position was reached > > North > S 9 > H xx > D xxx > C x > > S J5 > H xxx irrelevant > D - > C xx > South > S 643 > H A > D AQJ > C - > > At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played. > On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in > dummy > and thought W had SJ7 left). > > What is your ruling ?? Down 2. Since declarer knows there are two trumps out and is convinced he will lose both of them, I see no reason to believe he won't play in such a way as to lose both. What actually happened? I'm assuming that declarer claimed for down 2 and the defense acquiesced, in which case the concession must stand unless he has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining cards (Law 71C). Certainly, there are many "normal" (including careless or inferior) plays that would lose both tricks. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 15:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK45pK18901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:05:51 +1100 (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 fAK45jH18897 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:05:45 +1100 (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 fAK3u1m15407; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:56:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011119112738.00a96440@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <01C17077.9BE54E80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20011119112738.00a96440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:52:29 -0500 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Cc: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws mailing list" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:30 AM +0100 11/19/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Ed seems to think that 2S migfht be a minimum action. I suppose >many Americans, under K-S influence, would disagree (bid 2S over 1S >with a 3541 minimum). Thus, my 2S (the bid that I found obvious when >I responded to Fearghal) was also intended to be very much >forward-going. I do think it's a minimum action. Around here, I know of one pair who play K-S, and quite a few who have no clue what it is. :-) And while I do know what K-S is, and in fact recently acquired a copy of the pamphlet "revised K-S" (by Kaplan, I think), it wouldn't have occurred to me that 2S might be forward going in that system (not because I would expect it not to be, but because I don't know the system that well). It now occurs to me that I don't know whether it would be forward going in Acol, either. And I don't know what "standard" is, in Ireland. So perhaps my comments, made in the context of "Standard American" as I understand it, were out of the ball park - although Fearghal did tell me the AC came up with the same answer I did. :-) 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/AwUBO/nVEb2UW3au93vOEQJFUgCeN025+UVATTVeKYHxn1/g4+1EEBIAoMhk lswnBNd+ghTSvitj6KUBs+1o =TMj/ -----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 Nov 20 18:16:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK7ERt25067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:14:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep02-svc.swip.net (fep02.swip.net [130.244.199.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAK7ELH25062 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:14:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.98.68]) by fep02-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20011120070744.CRPM21962.fep02-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:07:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c17190$0da793c0$446297d4@swipnet.se> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:53:25 +0100 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, When you respond to 1 spade you two alternatives. Either you have a minimum hand and respond 2 spades or else you call 2 diamonds planning to call 2 spades on 2 hearts or 3 spades on 2 NT or something similar. So pass is no LA. Hans-Olof Hallén -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 20 20:06:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAK95jd25127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:05:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow029o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAK95bH25123 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:05:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from pcow029m.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:59:04 +0000 Received: from mikeamos (unverified) by pcow029m.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with SMTP id ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: <004501c171a1$ba45e260$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:59:56 -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 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: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. > > EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently > (emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both > given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged > bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The Director checked that > the other table had not yet played the board > (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. > > Question 1 > Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) ABSOLUTELY NOT Sometimes Peter when I read your tales of Antipodean antics I think we in the privileged nations of the Northern Hemisphere should have a whip-round and buy our Australian cousins a Law Book so that you will be able to manage your tournaments better 40C tells us what to do if there is a misexplanation - award an adjusted score - He's just got to rule one way or the other and let the blighters get on with it . "You may of course appeal". TD job done. It really isn't that important whether he gets the adjustment right or wrong, after all there is always the Appeal Committee to save the day. (Cough Cough) 6D3 seems to me to tell us that the TD is NOT empowered to do this - "any reason compatible with the Laws" > > The match ended and Team B had lost by 16 IMPs. They decided > to appeal against the Director's decision to scrap the board. > They wanted their 1100 back, and claimed that the 1100 penalty > was independent of the wrong explanations. > > Questions 2 > Can such an appeal be made? Yes - see Law92A the right to appeal is absolute I feel - provided it is in time - you make no reference to when in the match this ocurred - what breaks there were and what regulations - if the match were played in stanzas with breaks you might want to write regulations such that appeals from early stanzs had to be lodged before play continued - ideally this sort of mess needs sorting out before the final stanza is played Should the appeal be heard? If > so, how? By the AC, or in the first place by the TD? (ref Law 93B) Again this seems to be covered by the Laws TD has made a ruling apparently under 6D3 Appeal to Chief TD and the if necessary further appeal to commitee 93B1 > > The appeal was heard. The AC reinstated the minus 1100, and > at the other table (which never played the hand) the AC > determined a score. No smileys, this really happened. > > Question 3 Read from the Law Book 82C tells the Chief TD and so the Appeal Committe what to do Both sides shall be treated as non-offending and an adjusted score awarded I would be surprised if it had never happened that because of TD error a board had not been played at one table and so an adjusted score had to be awarded So if we decide that -1100 is the result then we have to work out the most favourable result that was likely for Team A and for Team B, imp them both against 1100 and in head-to-head play average the result - tell them the score on the board and tell them to get on with it. Ok so this is very unsatisfactory but it follows the Laws - it is better if TDs don't do this sort of thing > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent in the history of bridge > for a board to be "unscrapped" by an AC? > > Question 4 > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC determining a score for a > table which never played the board in question? I'm sure there are many - after all it's not that different from what we do in lots of situations EW play in 4S after an irregularity TD decides contract should be 4H - it's never been played - we have to decide on number of tricks - SNAFU I'll leave those better qualified than me to answer your later questions One thing I do think about this is how important it is for TDs and Acs in major comps to follow Laws and Regulations - even if the Laws are silly, regulations unfair we have to stick to them or the sort of anarchic chaos Peter describes follows. All TDs make illegal rulings - I can imagine a situation in the club where I might make the same sort of ruling as this poor TD. Say there had been a series of cockups in the first round of a Club Pairs - both sides had been silly and so on - if I was at the table and someone said "oh look it's the first round - no one has played this board yet why don't we redeal it and start again?" and the others said "Good idea" I can imagine saying "Well in that case you don't need me anymore" - smiling and walking off pleased that everyone was satisfied. However this approach doesn't work in major comps when you get found out and people write sarcastic things about you on BLML Rule Number 1 for TDs Cover your backside 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 Nov 20 21:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKAa0F25167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:36:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAKAZrH25163 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAKATKO25016 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:29:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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: Chas wrote: > > Of the decisive answers posted, we currently appear to have one person > in agreement and six who disagree. ISTM that this is as close to > unanimity as you're likely to get on BLML! Make that 6.5 vs 0.5. My only concern about the situation is why people feel so certain they can make a judgement call better than the director at the time. Do we all agree that if TD was sure (almost sure?) that the play would have gone as declarer suggested then awarding a trick to the defence would be a gross divergence from L70A? So what, in the face of an "obvious trick to the defence ruling" made the TD sure? I hope some fact is missing from the report rather than just poor directing. 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 Nov 21 02:36:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKFZH710970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:35:17 +1100 (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 fAKFZAH10966 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:35:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-12-204.easynet.co.uk [212.134.20.204]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 550D31D5838 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:28:36 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:26:52 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200111200216.SAA09683@mailhub.irvine.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan wrote: >> Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >> Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs >> >> After several rounds of play this position was reached >> >> North >> S 9 >> H xx >> D xxx >> C x >> >> S J5 >> H xxx irrelevant >> D - >> C xx >> South >> S 643 >> H A >> D AQJ >> C - >> >> At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played. >> On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in >> dummy and thought W had SJ7 left). >> >> What is your ruling ?? > Down 2. Since declarer knows there are two trumps out and is > convinced he will lose both of them, I see no reason to believe he > won't play in such a way as to lose both. > > What actually happened? I'm assuming that declarer claimed for down 2 > and the defense acquiesced, in which case the concession must stand > unless he has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" > play of the remaining cards (Law 71C). Certainly, there are many > "normal" (including careless or inferior) plays that would lose both > tricks. I agree down 2. Declarer has conceded 2 tricks and claimed the remaining 5 (L68B). Once a concession has been made then, whether or not defenders have acquiesced, it can only be withdrawn if the conditions of L71A, B or C apply and I agree with Adam that they don't. 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 Nov 21 02:52:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKFqbb10987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:52:37 +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 fAKFqVH10983 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:52:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA26684; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:45:51 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Adam Beneschan , "Bridge Laws" , adam@irvine.com Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:29:46 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3bfa76ea.26d6.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.180 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> Hi All >> >> Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs >> >> After several rounds of play this position was reached >> >> North >> S 9 >> H xx >> D xxx >> C x >> >> S J5 >> H xxx irrelevant >> D - >> C xx >> South >> S 643 >> H A >> D AQJ >> C - >> > >Down 2. Since declarer knows there are two trumps out and is >convinced he will lose both of them, I see no reason to believe he >won't play in such a way as to lose both. > >What actually happened? [Karel - The TD was called and asked to rule. He initially ruled -2, but with the above explanation of the "presumed" play then ruled -1. As I don't/didn't clearly understand .. Law 71C ?? ... I was interested in exactly how it applies. This case appears not to be clearcut as declarer seemed well clued in (certainly better than RHO) and knew LHO had a diamond void. So can we force declarer to play a diamond as oppose to ruff a heart ... or do we take the view that if he is convinced the remaining spade is higher than his own he will suffer the diamond ruff to keep control ??] -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 03:03:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKG3gt11017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:03:42 +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 fAKG3bH11013 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:03:37 +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 HAA26850; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:57:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200111201557.HAA26850@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:29:46 GMT." <3bfa76ea.26d6.0@esatclear.ie> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:57:03 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: > >> Hi All > >> > >> Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs > >> > >> After several rounds of play this position was reached > >> > >> North > >> S 9 > >> H xx > >> D xxx > >> C x > >> > >> S J5 > >> H xxx irrelevant > >> D - > >> C xx > >> South > >> S 643 > >> H A > >> D AQJ > >> C - > >> > > > >Down 2. Since declarer knows there are two trumps out and is > >convinced he will lose both of them, I see no reason to believe he > >won't play in such a way as to lose both. > > > >What actually happened? > > [Karel - The TD was called and asked to rule. He initially ruled > -2, but with the above explanation of the "presumed" play then ruled > -1. As I don't/didn't clearly understand .. Law 71C ?? ... I was > interested in exactly how it applies. I'd still like to know exactly what happened. Who called the TD? If declarer claimed down 2 and the defense called the TD to complain that declarer should be awarded more tricks than he claimed, perhaps we should rule down 1 on the theory that if a pair wishes to shoot themselves in the foot the TD should not stop them. > This case appears not to be clearcut as declarer seemed well clued > in (certainly > better than RHO) and knew LHO had a diamond void. So can we force declarer > to play a diamond as oppose to ruff a heart ... or do we take the view that > if he is convinced the remaining spade is higher than his own he will suffer > the diamond ruff to keep control ??] I don't see a problem with forcing declarer to play a diamond. If a declarer believes that every trump owned by the opponents is a winner, he usually won't lead trumps himself (unless he's running an endplay or squeeze). It's much more common IMHO to just lead out your side-suit winners and let the opponents win their trump whenever they choose to. -- 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 Nov 21 03:30:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKGStd11057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:28:55 +1100 (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 ([195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAKGSnH11053 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:28:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-12-122.easynet.co.uk [212.134.20.122]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D3718F869 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:14:12 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:12:30 -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 (9.0.2910.0) 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 > Tim West-meads wrote: > Make that 6.5 vs 0.5. My only concern about the situation is why people > feel so certain they can make a judgement call better than the director at > the time. Do we all agree that if TD was sure (almost sure?) that the > play would have gone as declarer suggested then awarding a trick to the > defence would be a gross divergence from L70A? Like the TD in this case I too think that declarer would probably have got it right, but I don't think this is applying the right test. If we think he would have got it right 80% of the time (and I think this is generous - Herman thinks about 50% is right), this means that 20% of the time we think he would have got it wrong. On these 20% of occasions we might believe his play to be careless or inferior, but I don't think any of us would regard it as irrational. Unless the wrong line is irrational it falls within the bounds of "normal" and L70 tells us that the NOS are entitled to the benefit of 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 Wed Nov 21 03:52:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKGorQ11074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:50:53 +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 fAKGolH11070 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:50:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-170-219.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.170.219]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAKGiCT07602 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:44:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BFA50EC.9C1A582@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:47:40 +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] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I cannot afford not to answer posts about claims, so here goes. Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > Hi All > > Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs > > After several rounds of play this position was reached > > North > S 9 > H xx > D xxx > C x > > S J5 > H xxx irrelevant > D - > C xx > South > S 643 > H A > D AQJ > C - > > At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played. > On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in > dummy > and thought W had SJ7 left). > > What is your ruling ?? > Thank you Karel, for providing what I believe to be the most important piece of information in any claim ruling : the misconception that claimer is under. Well, then it's easy - let's suppose that the cards are thus : North S 9 H xx D xxx C x S J7 H xxx irrelevant D - C xx South S 643 H A D AQJ C - In which case the claim for -2 is perfect. South realizes that West will not make more or less than his two trump tricks. Now all we need to do is list all possible (normal) plays in this situation, and then see what happens when the five, not the seven appears. Now in some lines that five will appear when declarer still has the six, and can play it, but there are normal lines in which this is not the case. One possible line would be just to cash red winners, allowing West to ruff and cash his top spade. When west ruffs with the five, there is nothing South can do. > When asked what line he would have taken he said spade to the nine and on > the > probable heart back he would ruff a heart. He would not go back via > diamonds > as West had led the diamond 2 and had signalled strongly twice for a diamond > from partner (who had ignored him), indicating west was void in diamonds. > Is > this relevant to your ruling ?? > Well, yes it is, everything is. But I'll simply tell South that if he was uncertain about whether West held the 5 or the 7, he should not have claimed. As it is, there are normal lines that lead to -2. Sorry ! > I think there is some rule which goes something along the lines of "If you > claim > down x tricks and it infact transpires that you cannot infact lose the > tricks claimed > that you are allowed to claim down x-1 tricks. Or am I totally misinformed > ?? > You are not misinformed, but in this case there are normal lines that lead to down x. -- 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 Nov 21 05:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKIEfq11124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:14:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAKIEZH11120 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:14:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-29.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.29]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 269F48F8D2 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:32:28 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:30:46 -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 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <200111201557.HAA26850@mailhub.irvine.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan wrote: > I'd still like to know exactly what happened. Who called the TD? I don't see that it matters in the least who called the TD or why. Declarer has conceded 2 tricks and we agree that he has no L71 grounds for withdrawing this concession. 2 tricks to the defence - end of story! 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 Nov 21 05:48:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKIlPB11150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:47:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAKIlJH11146 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:47:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-015.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.207]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA46774 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:40 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01C171F2.E12E0B40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:50 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One of our easier Claim problems for some time? Minus 2 it is. It is perfectly normal for declarer to cash Diamond winners now to surrender his 2 trump losers safely. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 06:05:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKJ5jJ11167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:05:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAKJ5dH11163 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:05:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAKIx5S14441 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:59:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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: Chas wrote: > Like the TD in this case I too think that declarer would probably have > got it right, but I don't think this is applying the right test. If we > think he would have got it right 80% of the time (and I think this is > generous - Herman thinks about 50% is right) 50% is really no problem, there is doubt and it goes to the defenders and we can all feel equity is served. Personally I don't have a problem with 60 or 70 percent either. The question seems more difficult when the TD is 99% sure that declarer would get it right (or 98/95/90/80). Is there a threshold at which the level of doubt is too small to award a trick to defence? Does this threshold vary between TDs? IMO if the TD *is* 98% sure then 70A forbids awarding a trick to defence since this bears so little resemblance to equity. 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 Nov 21 10:09:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKN77C22344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:07:07 +1100 (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 fAKN70H22340 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:07:01 +1100 (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 SAA27322 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA18861 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111202300.SAA18861@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > Two nonoffending sides wont get the > same score in any hand. At least I cannot guess a hand where both > sides get the same score, when they are non-offenders. It's not hard to think of examples where the scores are the same, although it's common for them to be different. For example, suppose in an MI case, the TD forgets to offer a player a chance to change his call when it's not too late. Suppose also that the further auction (once the MI is corrected) can reasonably go only one way, and the result in the final contract is also obvious. If all this is true, we will assign the same score to both sides. Another example would be where the TD forgets to tell a revoker about holding the penalty to one trick. If it's obvious how to do it, both sides get the score for a one-trick revoke. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 10:28:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAKNRu022361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:27:56 +1100 (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 fAKNRpH22357 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:27:51 +1100 (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 SAA28357 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA18895 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:21:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > - E/W are a highly practised long-term partnership with a clear > agreement that 2S was a transfer to clubs. West forgot and > misbid. East forgot so he failed to alert. If both forgot, one might think "clear agreement" is an exaggeration. > - the continuations by E/W are almost impossible to determine > with any accuracy. They might reach 4S (down 2) or 3NT (down 4) or a > slam (doubled by South) or 5D (down 2). E/W might even > reach a doubled club contract after West rebids spades and > East assumes West is 7-5 in clubs and spades. N/S might > end up playing the hand. There are many possible follow-ups.... None of this is any excuse for giving an artificial score. Just put all the results in order from most to least favorable to the NOS (NS in this case): 6Cx=, 6C=, 5Cx+1, 5Cx=, 5C=, (ew)3NT-4, (ew)4S-2, (ew)5D-2, 6C-1, 3Dx-5. Maybe you want to add other possibilities or leave out some of these; feel free to make your own list. Call them equally likely if you can't think of anything better to do. "At all probable" is one chance in 6 in the ACBL; that seems reasonable enough anywhere. So give the OS 6C=, the second worst score out of ten. "Likely" is one chance in three in the ACBL, so the NOS would get 5Cx= here. Other jurisdictions might prefer a different definition, but some score close to that one in the list looks about right. > The TD therefore thought that this was a rare case where it was > impossible to predict the course of the auction if N/S had been > given correct information, so he cancelled the table result. Most people think this is a TD error, so you have to rule under L82C. > Question A > Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? Even though I've asked, I've never heard a clear explanation of when it is proper to cancel a board (other than slow play). > The Directing staff then removed Bd 11 from play at the other > table (it had not been played there yet). Now it looks like a L12C1 problem. > The AC reinstated the table result of NS -1100. I don't know > why with 100% certainty, but I am told that the AC believed > that NS damaged themselves independently of any infraction. This seems correct to me; the East and West explanations matched the hand held and each other's "at the table" understanding. Why should some so-called agreement written on an obscure piece of paper matter? No infraction or at least no damage consequent to an infraction. > The AC noted that there was no result at the other table to > compare with. They asked the Directors to determine a > result at the other table. This is where I have problems. I suppose if L12C3 is in effect, you can do whatever you want, but absent that, it looks like 12C1: +3 IMPs to each 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 Wed Nov 21 11:21:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL0L5t24327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:21:05 +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 fAL0KwH24310 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:20:59 +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 AAA13710 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:14:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:12:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 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 In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Chas wrote: >> >> Of the decisive answers posted, we currently appear to have one person >> in agreement and six who disagree. ISTM that this is as close to >> unanimity as you're likely to get on BLML! > >Make that 6.5 vs 0.5. My only concern about the situation is why people >feel so certain they can make a judgement call better than the director at >the time. Do we all agree that if TD was sure (almost sure?) that the >play would have gone as declarer suggested then awarding a trick to the >defence would be a gross divergence from L70A? > If the player has lost the plot in diamonds I would be spectacularly unconvinced that he had any idea what was going on in the hand. He could easily pitch the wrong card. cheers john >So what, in the face of an "obvious trick to the defence ruling" made the >TD sure? I hope some fact is missing from the report rather than just >poor directing. > >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 Wed Nov 21 11:22:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL0MTi24516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:22:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL0MMH24493 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:22:23 +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 AAA13735 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:15:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:13:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 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 In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Chas wrote: > >> Like the TD in this case I too think that declarer would probably have >> got it right, but I don't think this is applying the right test. If we >> think he would have got it right 80% of the time (and I think this is >> generous - Herman thinks about 50% is right) > >50% is really no problem, there is doubt and it goes to the defenders and >we can all feel equity is served. Personally I don't have a problem with >60 or 70 percent either. > >The question seems more difficult when the TD is 99% sure that declarer >would get it right (or 98/95/90/80). Is there a threshold at which the >level of doubt is too small to award a trick to defence? Does this >threshold vary between TDs? > >IMO if the TD *is* 98% sure then 70A forbids awarding a trick to defence >since this bears so little resemblance to equity. > This I agree with, but I'm not sure it applies in the case in question >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 Wed Nov 21 12:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL1FSR01455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:15:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ausinfo.com.au ([203.17.19.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL1FIH01424 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:15:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from tstrong [203.17.19.134] by ausinfo.com.au [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.7.0.R) for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:06:44 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> X-Sender: tstrongbridge@mail.ausinfo.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:03:20 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Strong Tom Subject: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Return-Path: tstrongbridge@ausinfo.com.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Curious thing about the Norther Hempisphere and it superior knowledge of bridge. Last time I played there, although not in the UK., I noticed that you could not reserve your right but had to call the director immediately after a hesitation, that a psyche of a strong one or two club opener was ruled to be ilegal and that youhad to 'play bridge' after your opponents flagrantly used UI. These things are not found in the laws. I also noticed an air of stulification in bidding with all new ideas since the Precision System were deemed illegal. I think its does no good for some 'pommy' to take a shot at the directors of national events ina country that he has never played bridge in. I guess the 'colonials' must be put in there place. It would have been wiser to ask someone like David Stevenson about how Australian COngresses are run and directed. That would take all the fun out of it though due to the limiting nature of facts. In reply to his 'solutions' I am reminded of the old saw of " simple solutions for simple minds". Tom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 13:37:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL2a6206226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:36:06 +1100 (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 fAL2a0H06216 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:36:01 +1100 (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 fAL2TOG10787; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:29:25 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:29:03 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:21 PM -0500 11/20/01, Steve Willner wrote: >This is where I have problems. I suppose if L12C3 is in effect, you >can do whatever you want, but absent that, it looks like 12C1: +3 IMPs >to each side. Hm. If I've followed this correctly, it appears we have an imp result at one table, and a raw score at the other. Now what do we do? Don't we have to have one result (in imps) for team A, and one for team B? How do we compare the +/- 1100 at the one table to the +3/+3 imps at the other? 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/AwUBO/sRiL2UW3au93vOEQLx0wCglCbCZeEsjIDp+JWmb2OWLwEM0HAAoLX1 ujeJMm3kHmA9f1dlK1Ko/DWO =2B2p -----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 Nov 21 13:46:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL2jox07934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:45:50 +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 fAL2jiH07921 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:45:44 +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 NAA26656; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:48:49 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:24:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 To: "tstrongbridge::.gov.au":"ausinfo.com.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:36:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/11/2001 01:30:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill enquired: >>>Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. >>> >>>EW from Team A went for 1100 in a 4-0 fit. Apparently >>>(emphasising "apparently"), N and S for Team B had both >>>given wrong explanations, and the consequent damaged >>>bidding thus bore no resemblance to normality. The >>>Director checked that the other table had not yet played >>>the board (they had not) and decided to scrap the board. >>> >>>Question 1 >>>Is the Director empowered to scrap the board? (Law 6D3) Mike Amos replied: >>ABSOLUTELY NOT >>Sometimes Peter when I read your tales of Antipodean >>antics I think we in the privileged nations of the >>Northern Hemisphere should have a whip-round and buy our >>Australian cousins a Law Book so that you will be able to >>manage your tournaments better. >> >>40C tells us what to do if there is a misexplanation - >>award an adjusted score - He's just got to rule one way >>or the other and let the blighters get on with it. "You >>may of course appeal". TD job done. It really isn't that >>important whether he gets the adjustment right or wrong, >>after all there is always the Appeal Committee to save >>the day. (Cough Cough) >> >>6D3 seems to me to tell us that the TD is NOT empowered >>to do this - "any reason compatible with the Laws". [snip] Tom Strong saluted the vegemite sandwich: [snip] >I think it does no good for some 'pommy' to take a shot at >the directors of national events in a country that he has >never played bridge in. I guess the 'colonials' must be >put in their place. [snip] My views: 1. Mike Amos' hyperbole (which I, an Aussie, found witty) may be misinterpreted by some as sarcasm. 2. The TD in question made a error in Law, but who's perfect? (Certainly not me.) 3. The AC made an unusual decision, to restore its view of equity. 4. The AC decision may or may not be Lawful. 5. There is no need for an Aussie to be defensive about the management of Oz tournaments. Australia achieves world's best practice in: a) Alerting regulations; b) Swiss teams; c) System classification, and, d) Civility. 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 Nov 21 13:46:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL2kah08069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:46:36 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL2kUH08056 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:46:30 +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 fAL2dSj09860; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:39:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:33:49 -0500 To: Strong Tom From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:03 AM +1000 11/21/01, Strong Tom wrote: > Curious thing about the Norther Hempisphere and it superior knowledge of >bridge. Last time I played there, although not in the UK., I noticed that >you could not reserve your right but had to call the director immediately >after a hesitation, that a psyche of a strong one or two club opener was >ruled to be ilegal and that youhad to 'play bridge' after your opponents >flagrantly used UI. > These things are not found in the laws. The first one is. :-) > I also noticed an air of >stulification in bidding with all new ideas since the Precision System were >deemed illegal. I tend to agree - though I note that Romex is legal. And EHAA, I think. :-) Those contain some "new ideas. 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/AwUBO/sT5b2UW3au93vOEQKbDwCg5dVOgmTMX2GH9yzc6ElxfxRNjZYAnjbv xgBElxXKbp+i9D9BCFzmkeTE =w0M3 -----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 Nov 21 19:16:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL8G4C27334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:16:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAL8FvH27330 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:15:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9376 invoked by uid 50005); 21 Nov 2001 08:09:23 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4171. . Clean. Processed in 0.201375 secs); 21 Nov 2001 08:09:23 -0000 Received: from wellscs ([24.229.82.228]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 Nov 2001 08:09:23 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:09:37 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> 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, 21 Nov 2001 11:03:20 +1000, you wrote: Tom, >I also noticed an air of >stulification in bidding with all new ideas since the Precision System were >deemed illegal. It may interest you to know that one of my regular OKBridge partners, a lurker and occasional poster to this list, is currently playing the Las Vegas NABC. As far as I know, Richard is playing the same MOSCITO system as he and I play on OKBridge. Use of the system is restricted in that you must play in at least mid-chart events (or so I'm reliably informed), but that's a world of difference from illegal. >That would take all the fun out of it though due to >the limiting nature of facts. Couldn't have said it better myself. 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 Nov 21 20:06:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL95Sp03320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:05:28 +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 fAL95LH03293 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:05:21 +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 fAL8wYj24897; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:58:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:48:46 -0500 To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >As far as I know, Richard >is playing the same MOSCITO system as he and I play on OKBridge. >Use of the system is restricted in that you must play in at least >mid-chart events (or so I'm reliably informed), but that's a >world of difference from illegal. It occurred to me a couple of days ago to wonder in what percentage of Sectional and Regional tournaments anything beyond the GCC is allowed. I have a feeling it's not many - at least, none of the ads I saw in the last two Bulletins mentioned it, as they're required to do by ACBL regulation if they're allowing Mid-chart or Superchart. I have it in the back of my mind to ask the ACBL about it, but I haven't got a rountuit yet. :-) 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/AwUBO/tswb2UW3au93vOEQIV7gCePuICIxMa4TmyEbPyBl0Ize33upwAoKG8 r5rZmzUakSDY92IAH3CLqUAl =fT/7 -----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 Nov 21 20:20:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL9JSQ06336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:19:28 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL9JMH06317 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:19:22 +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 KAA15341; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:09:37 +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 KAA10026; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:12:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121100958.00a1a9a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:13:38 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again In-Reply-To: <005501c17100$bc3c6d60$9dd436cb@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 00:47 20/11/2001 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>Your opinions please. > >>Team scoring > >>You are a very good player (expert) > >>You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > >>S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > >>Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > >>Partner rebids 2H. Is Pass a Logical Action? > > > >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S > >No. Partner has not "supported" your suit. He has called your >suit but his call is not "support" - 2H is merely "preference", >e.g. with Qxxx, 10, 3, KJ9xxxx, what can partner do but bid 2H? AG : if partner is painted into that particular corner, your question will be unanswerable. But ... I don't know how weak 74 hands are treated throughout the World, but in my particular microcosm they are one-suited. Which means that one would (should) either answer 3C (if playing WJR) or 1NT, then 3C. Of course, this might be one of the hands 'suggested' by the tempo, but I would not expect it from a far-sighted partner. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 20:21:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAL9LET06680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:21:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL9L7H06658 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:21:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-118-151.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.118.151] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166TQi-000Ob1-00; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:12:28 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01c1726d$0dcc9e80$977601d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "Peter Gill" , "mike amos" References: <019a01c16f83$0152ff60$cfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <004501c171a1$ba45e260$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:58:56 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Peter Gill ; BLML Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Gill" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 4:14 PM > Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > > > Grand National Teams Finals yesterday, a Knockout Match. > > > Again this seems to be covered by the Laws > TD has made a ruling apparently under 6D3 > Appeal to Chief TD > > and the if necessary further appeal to commitee 93B1 > ----------- \x/ --------- > Read from the Law Book > 82C tells the Chief TD and so the Appeal Committe what >to do > Both sides shall be treated as non-offending and an adjusted >score awarded > I would be surprised if it had never happened that because > of TD error a board had not been played at one table and > so an adjusted score had to be awarded > > So if we decide that -1100 is the result then we have to > work out the most favourable result that was likely for Team > A and for Team B, imp them both against 1100 and in > head-to-head play average the result - tell them the score > on the board and tell them to get on with it. Ok so this is > very unsatisfactory but it follows the Laws - it is better if > TDs don't do this sort of thing > +=+ I think this is a very bold statement. There seems to be more than a slight doubt what the law tells the Director/AC to do in such a case. See following. +=+ > > > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent in the history of > >bridge for a board to be "unscrapped" by an AC? > > > > Question 4 > > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC > > determining a score for a table which never played > > the board in question? > > I'm sure there are many - after all it's not that > different from what we do in lots of situations > +=+ We have heard of one, from Germany. That does not sound like 'many'. I know of nothing that can be considered a precedent or an authority on the subject. I do not see anywhere in the laws a power for the Director or the AC to 'manufacture' a score on a board that has not been played because of a Director's error. It is perhaps worth noting that the WBFLC instructed us in Paris that a Director's error is not an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws; so neither 12C1 nor 12C2 applies directly. Subject to persuasion otherwise, my initial view of this situation is that the only law that can be applied is 12A2. Each side is non-offending and is awarded +3 imps (Law 86A). ~ 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 Nov 21 21:25:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALAN8m09642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:23:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALAN2H09638 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0313.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.135.58] helo=c1r5i8) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166UQe-00063e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:16:29 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01c17275$7d651080$3a87b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: MidChart conventions & ACBL -- WAS: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:15:46 -0800 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 > >Brian Meadows wrote -- > >As far as I know, Richard is playing the same > >MOSCITO system as he and I play on OKBridge. > >Use of the system is restricted in that you must play in > >at least mid-chart events (or so I'm reliably informed), > >but that's a world of difference from illegal. > > >Ed Reppert wrote -- > It occurred to me a couple of days ago to wonder in what percentage > of Sectional and Regional tournaments anything beyond the GCC is > allowed. I have a feeling it's not many - at least, none of the ads I > saw in the last two Bulletins mentioned it, as they're required to do > by ACBL regulation if they're allowing Mid-chart or Superchart. I > have it in the back of my mind to ask the ACBL about it, but I > haven't got a rountuit yet. :-) Ed, Brian, et al, My wife and I know this ACBL MidChart situation very well. We almost always use a MidChart-encumbered system: 1C artif/forcing, but 10+ (only forcing opener) [our *artif* responses to this are MidChart] 2D Multi [MidChart, of course] 8-12 2H & 2S 2-suiters [MidChart because low end < 10HCP] Responses to 1H: [MidChart] 1S = 0-4S, 1-round force, not limited 1NT = 5+S We assiduously avoid clubs (few), sectionals (most), or regionals (few) that do not allow MidChart conventions. To be able to support local unit games, we have devised a frustrating, minimal-change workaround and use it there. :-\\ At regionals and nationals, we stick to MidChart-allowed events -- most of the desirable, more serious events. This is the basic survival strategy for MidCharters in the ACBL. :-) Not surprisingly, many LA-area tournament managers are not even aware of this issue. [Huh? What is "MidChart"?] Where we are motivated, we educate them to it. Several have accommodated by doing the ACBL's MidChart-approved advertising dance. BTW, the new burden for MidChart users is the requirement to file a 'defensive bidding' approach on the ACBL site. Such filings are uneven in thoroughness and quality and, in some cases, fairly humorously trivial. [E.g., how to cope with an 8-12 2-suiter vs. a 10-12 2-suiter.] Tom Wood, southern 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 Nov 21 21:56:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALAtkl09660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:55:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALAteH09656 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:55:41 +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 LAA16445; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:48:47 +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 LAA19225; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:48:45 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:49:37 +0100 To: Brian Zietman , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's on first ? In-Reply-To: <20011119140347.97464.qmail@web12405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:03 19/11/2001 +0000, Brian Zietman wrote: >First two trick questions. > >1)How do you become dummy after bidding INT all pass >and no lead out of turn ? > >2) What is mini-Stayman ? > >Here is how it happened : > >After South opening 1 NT- pass - pass - 1 Heart, I was >called for the insufficient bid. >South decided to accept the insufficient bid in order >to use his later described as mini-Stayman convention >and bid 1 Spade. >After pass by West, North with only 2 spades but a >heart stopper and 6 points decided to bid 1 NT which >was passed out. >I ruled that since South got in first with the 1 NT >bid he is the designated declarer ! >Cute eh? AG : welcome Brian, and if your next posts look like this one, I feel we're going to have fun. South is indeed the declarer, according to Chapter 1 - definition of 'declarer'. South could bid 1S if he wishes, that's a clever way to use the extra space provided. However, no new conventions are allowed over infractions. You should have reminded him that. Of course, 1S is not a convetional bid here, but he presented it as such ... Best regards, Alain. >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email >and Music Charts >http://uk.my.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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 21 22:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALBnY010481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:49:34 +1100 (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 fALBnRH10477 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:49:28 +1100 (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 fALBgoo07508; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:51 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fALBgo523145; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:50 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:50 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 LAA06153; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:49 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA02942; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:49 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:42:49 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111211142.LAA02942@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, GillP@bigpond.com, mamos@blueyonder.co.uk, cyaxares@lineone.net Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Question 4 > > > Has anyone ever heard of a precedent of an AC > > > determining a score for a table which never played > > > the board in question? > > > > I'm sure there are many - after all it's not that > > different from what we do in lots of situations > > > +=+ We have heard of one, from Germany. That does > not sound like 'many'. I know of nothing that can be > considered a precedent or an authority on the subject. [snip] The EBU regulations require the TD/AC to determine the score for a table which never played the board, in at least one case I can think of. In head-to-head or multiple teams, if a team get a good score on a board and the board is fouled so that it can not be scored at the other table and this is solely the fault of the other team, the TD shall award an adjusted score, so the NOS benefit from their good score. (www.ebu.co.uk/whiteb.pdf 80.16.2 d) (vi)). This requires the TD to assign a (par) score at the second table and compare with the NOS good score to produce a result for the board. 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 Nov 21 23:06:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALC6bn10507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:06:37 +1100 (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 fALC6WH10503 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from plato.purplesoft.com (unknown [217.204.155.68]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C45673B2 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:59:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: by PLATO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:01:23 -0000 Message-ID: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC3@PLATO> From: Martin Kane To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:01:22 -0000 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 - AKxx - Axx 3C major penalty card A Qxx - Qxx 3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy West probably has an outstanding diamond winner EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an earlier spade, then corrected) Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses apply lead penalties to West? ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 without West being able to cash his diamond? 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 Wed Nov 21 23:22:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALCMT710524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:22:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f76.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALCMNH10520 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:22:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 04:15:45 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:15:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:15:45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2001 12:15:45.0807 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F6851F0:01C17286] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Strong Tom > > Curious thing about the Norther Hempisphere and it superior knowledge of >bridge. Last time I played there, although not in the UK., I noticed that >you could not reserve your right but had to call the director immediately >after a hesitation, that a psyche of a strong one or two club opener was >ruled to be ilegal and that youhad to 'play bridge' after your opponents >flagrantly used UI. > These things are not found in the laws. I also noticed an air of >stulification in bidding with all new ideas since the Precision System were >deemed illegal. > I think its does no good for some 'pommy' to take a shot at the >directors of national events ina country that he has never played bridge >in. I guess the 'colonials' must be put in there place. It would have been >wiser to ask someone like David Stevenson about how Australian COngresses >are run and directed. That would take all the fun out of it though due to >the limiting nature of facts. > In reply to his 'solutions' I am reminded of the old saw of " simple >solutions for simple minds". > > Tom Remind me, which lot was it that was supposed to be the whingers? _________________________________________________________________ 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 Nov 21 23:24:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALCOir10536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:24:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALCOcH10532 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:24:38 +1100 (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 fALCI3o12105; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:03 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fALCI2926064; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:02 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:02 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 MAA06177; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:02 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA02978; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:01 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:18:01 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111211218.MAA02978@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, martin.kane@purplesoftware.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards query X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > - > AKxx > - > Axx > 3C major penalty card > A > Qxx > - > Qxx > > 3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy > West probably has an outstanding diamond winner > EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an > earlier spade, then corrected) > > Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 > am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses > apply lead penalties to West? > ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 > without West being able to cash his diamond? > I don't think this will work. You play a club from dummy, East follows with C3, and West wins with CK. East no longer has a penalty card, so no lead penalties, ... so curtains! 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 Nov 21 23:40:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALCe2010558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:40:02 +1100 (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 fALCduH10554 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:39:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:32:32 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E60A@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:32:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Kane wrote: > - > AKxx > - > Axx > 3C major penalty card > A > Qxx > - > Qxx > >3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy >West probably has an outstanding diamond winner >EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an > earlier spade, then corrected) > >Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 >am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses >apply lead penalties to West? >ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 >without West being able to cash his diamond? The lead penalties apply as long as East has his MPC. If you play a club from dummy, East has to play the penalty card. West on lead is then free to do what he wants, since Easts penalty card has disappeared. -- 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 Nov 21 23:58:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALCw8h10575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:58:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hebe.uva.nl (hebe.uva.nl [145.18.40.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALCw1H10571 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:58:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (dhcp-ivip-215.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.215]) by hebe.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09208; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:51:25 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: hebe.uva.nl: Host dhcp-ivip-215.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.215] claimed to be jppals From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Alain Gottcheiner" Subject: RE: [BLML] Who's on first ? Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:50:48 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > However, no new conventions are allowed over infractions. You should have > reminded him that. Of course, 1S is not a convetional bid here, but he > presented it as such ... Maybe I am missing someting, but.... Are you saying that in this situation: West North East South 2NT 2sp ?? East is not allowed to accept and bid a conventional 3C? JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 00:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALDq9510607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:52:09 +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 fALDq3H10603 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:52:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01944 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:45:14 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:29:06 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3bfbac22.549a.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.150 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ok so if there is some "reasonable" line which could lead to -2 (and on the actual case several such lines exist) then the claim is bad and the result is -2. Fair enough. Follow up question - say we change the south hand to S 643 H A D AQ C A Now the only line on which south can lose 2 tricks is to play a diamond at some stage. Does this change the ruling ?? Karel >> Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs >> >> After several rounds of play this position was reached >> >> North >> S 9 >> H xx >> D xxx >> C x >> >> S J5 >> H xxx irrelevant >> D - >> C xx >> South >> S 643 >> H A >> D AQJ >> C - >> -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 01:15:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALE9tq10624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:09:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oldmail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALE9jH10620 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:09:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d276.iae.nl [212.61.5.22]) by oldmail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BDAF420F2B; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:03:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003101c17295$3302ce40$16053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "David Stevenson" , "Marvin L. French" , "Grattan Endecott" , "Konrad Ciborowski" , "bridge-laws" , "Olivier Beauvillain" Subject: [BLML] VIRUS Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:02:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1729D.93ED02E0" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1729D.93ED02E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: VIRUS Dear Friends, I have got on my computer the virus below. Up to now virusscanners like Norton and MCAFFEE cannot delete this virus = because of a built-in delay. It sneaks silently past the virusscanner. Maybe it circulates already = for months. It infiltrates the c:/windows/command and will delete the data on your = hard disk. Follow at once the instructions below and repete it every day! Please inform your relations as well. INSTRUCTIONS In order to find it: click on START, click on FIND, select FILES or FOLDERS, select MY COMPUTER, type the name: SULFNBK.EXE, if it is found select it but do not open it, click on EDIT, click on SELECT ALL, click on FILE, select DELETE, close this and empty also the RECYCLE BIN. Repeat this after every internet contact and inform your relations. Ben ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1729D.93ED02E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: VIRUS
 
Dear Friends,
 
I have got on my computer the virus=20 below.
Up to now virusscanners like Norton and = MCAFFEE=20 cannot delete this virus because of a built-in delay.
It sneaks silently past the = virusscanner. Maybe it=20 circulates already for months.
It infiltrates the c:/windows/command = and will=20 delete the data on your hard disk.
Follow at once the instructions below = and repete it=20 every day!
Please inform your relations as = well.
 
INSTRUCTIONS
 
In order to find it:
click on START,
click on FIND,
select FILES or FOLDERS,
select MY COMPUTER,
type the = name:=20 SULFNBK.EXE,
if it is found select it but do not open it,
click on EDIT,
click on SELECT ALL,
click on FILE,
select DELETE,
close this and empty also the RECYCLE BIN.

Repeat this after = every=20 internet contact and inform your relations.
 
Ben
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C1729D.93ED02E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 01:18:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALEEBf10635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:14:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fALEE5H10631 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:14:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from plato.purplesoft.com (unknown [217.204.155.68]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4EE4673E1 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:07:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: by PLATO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:08:53 -0000 Message-ID: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC4@PLATO> From: Martin Kane To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:08:52 -0000 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 Ta. That's what it seemed to say in the rules. It seemed odd to me, if, for example, East's card was a SP signal and West had to choose which suit to lead, to cash the setting trick. Does UI mean West is required to lead the 'wrong' suit ? Consider a more devious East, who knew he would not have a chance to discard... As it was East has KC and hearts are 33, so you can even take 7 tricks by leading a small club from dummy first. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sinot [mailto:Martin@spase.nl] Sent: 21 November 2001 12:33 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Martin Kane wrote: > - > AKxx > - > Axx > 3C major penalty card > A > Qxx > - > Qxx > >3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy >West probably has an outstanding diamond winner >EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an > earlier spade, then corrected) > >Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 >am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses >apply lead penalties to West? >ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 >without West being able to cash his diamond? The lead penalties apply as long as East has his MPC. If you play a club from dummy, East has to play the penalty card. West on lead is then free to do what he wants, since Easts penalty card has disappeared. 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 Nov 22 01:25:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALEP8N11349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:25:08 +1100 (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 fALEP2H11345 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:25:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:17:39 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E60C@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:17:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: >Ok so if there is some "reasonable" line which could lead to -2 (and on the actual >case several such lines exist) then the claim is bad and the result is -2. >Fair enough. > >Follow up question - > >say we change the south hand to > >S 643 >H A >D AQ >C A > >Now the only line on which south can lose 2 tricks is to play a diamond at some >stage. Does this change the ruling ?? No. As some already told, a reasonable play is to cash the winners in the side suits, letting West make his two trump tricks whenever he pleases. That does not change if South has a diamond less and a club more. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 01:36:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALEZu911370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:35:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oldmail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALEZnH11366 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:35:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d315.iae.nl [212.61.5.61]) by oldmail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id EC7F120F2B for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:29:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002f01c17298$d79ef980$b5053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: VIRUS Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:28:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01C172A1.23F2CB60" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C172A1.23F2CB60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WARNING, This is to inform you that my first message was a HOAX. Martin Sinot sent my that information. So please do not delete SULFNBK.EXE. Very sorry for that inconvenience I thought I did my best. Ben Sinot=20 To: 'Ben Schelen'=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:10 PM Subject: RE: VIRUS Ben, pas op! =20 Dit is geen virus!!! De file SULFNBK.EXE is een volkomen onschadelijke = file die hoort bij Windows. Om precies te zijn is het een programma om lange filenamen terug te = zetten (zal nu wel niet veel meer gebruikt worden). Onderstaande mail is een hoax (fopvirus), = die voor het eerst in Brazili=EB opdook en nu in diverse talen rondzwerft, waaronder = Nederlands. Het enige doel van een hoax is paniekzaaien. Negeren dus en in de prullenbak ermee. =20 Overigens kan de worm W32.Magistr.24876@mm een attachment met zich = meevoeren met deze filenaam. Let dus even op: - De Windowsversie van SULFNBK.EXE hoort in WINDOWS\COMMAND thuis, in = tegenstelling tot wat het mailtje beweert. - Kom je hem ergens anders tegen of als attachment, dan is het = hoogstwaarschijnlijk een virus. Maar in dat geval hoort iedere goede virusscanner met de laatste = virusdefinities hem als zodanig te herkennen (zie boven). - Kom je SULFNBK.EXE ergens anders tegen en reageert de virusscanner = niet, zet hem dan in quarantaine en stuur hem op naar bijvoorbeeld Symantec (Norton = AntiVirus). (Bron: = http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/sulfnbk.exe.warning.html - = bevat instructies om SULFNBK.EXE terug te plaatsen als je hem al hebt = weggegooid, evenals instructies om verdachte files op te sturen). =20 Nog even een voorwaarschuwing: deze hoax kan gevolgd worden door een = mailtje dat een vervanging voor SULFNBK.EXE aanbiedt, SULFNBK.ZIP. Dit is WEL een virus! (Bron: http://www.apcug.org/news/sulfnbk.htm) =20 Groetjes, --=20 Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl=20 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Schelen [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 14:30 To: Paul Wouters; Gea&Gijsbert Westra; W en M de Waele; Herman De = Wael; Jan Vos; Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC); Connie Thoolen-van Rijn; Rik = Terveen; willem Snackers; Martin Sinot; Sytze Sietsma; Marian Seisener; = Marcel Schoof; Golden Tulip De Scheperskamp; Ben Schelen; Ruud Ruijg; = Jan Peter Pals; Maurits Oortwijn; n.lardinois@strabrecht.nl; Ans van der = Meulen; MANEX; Luit.Kelfkens@philips.com; Frans Lejeune; Cees Laas; Ton = Kooijman; Bettie en Kees Kooijman; Jan Kalb; Thea de Jonge; = hotel-panoramique@9online.fr; Theo Holtwijk; Bert Hendrix; Michel = Franssen; Else van Eijndhoven; Berend Danker; = Con.Holzscherer@philips.com; Graham Clarke; cardwell@iaehv.nl; Fam = Bouwman-Godefrooij; Arnoud Bootsma; Nancy de Boer; Henk van den Berg; = jacques beljaars; Marc van Beijsterveldt; admiraal; = a.lucassen1@chello.nl Subject: VIRUS Importance: High Beste mensen, ook ik had onderstaand virus op mijn computer! =20 Via via kreeg ik deze mail en voel me verplicht om jullie dit door te = sturen!!!!! Uit betrouwbare bron vernam ik, dat iemand, buiten zijn schuld, ons = heeft besmet en wij mogelijk vervolgens weer jou. Het gaat om een virus dat geruisloos voorbij allerlei virusscanners sluipt, dus ook langs het = net door ons aangeschafte en meest ge-update Norton. Volg a.u.b. zo snel = mogelijk de onderstaande instructies op en geeft ze door aan al je = mailcontacten (als je het virus hebt). De instructies werken goed. Ik heb ze net = opgevolgd. Echt doen hoor! INSTRUCTIES: Het is mogelijk dat je computer besmet is met een virus dat erop geprogrammeerd is om actief te worden gemaakt. Door de 'activeer vertraging' die erin gebouwd zit, wordt het niet ontdekt door o.a. = mcafee en norton. Niemand weet hoe lang het virus al circuleert, mogelijk al enkele = maanden. Als het virus geactiveerd wordt, verwijdert het alle bestanden en = mappen van de harde schijf. Het virus verbreidt zich via e-mail en = infiltreert het dossier "c:/windows/command. Indien je het virus detecteert op je computer zal er dus "grote schoonmaak" moeten worden uitgevoerd op alle harde schijven. maar ook op de computers van diegenen waarmee je de laatste tijd per e-mail in contact hebt gestaan, anders blijft het een eeuwig durende = cirkel. Geef dit bericht daarom door aan alle contactpersonen in je adresboek. Om het te vinden en te verwijderen: Klik op start vervolgens op zoeken kies bestanden of mappen ga naar zoeken en kies lokale vaste schijven of "c" typ op de regel "naam": SULFNBK.EXE als het bestand wordt gevonden selecteer het, doch open het NIET door = er met de muis op te klikken klik op bewerken vervolgens op alles selecteren klik op bestand vervolgens op verwijderen sluit het venster en leeg de prullenbak Na deze operatie zit je in principe goed, maar je hebt waarschijnlijk = zelf mensen besmet aan wie je e-mails hebt verzonden. Mocht je dus het virus hebben, waarschuw ze dan, zodat ook zij hun schijven kunnen opschonen. Ben ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C172A1.23F2CB60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
WARNING,
 
This is to inform = you that=20 my first message was a HOAX.
 
Martin Sinot sent = my that=20 information.
 
So please do not = delete=20 SULFNBK.EXE.
 
Very sorry for = that=20 inconvenience I thought I did my best.
 
Ben
 
Sinot
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: VIRUS

Ben,=20 pas op!
 
Dit is=20 geen virus!!! De file SULFNBK.EXE is een volkomen onschadelijke file die = hoort=20 bij Windows.
Om=20 precies te zijn is het een programma om lange filenamen terug te zetten = (zal nu=20 wel niet
veel=20 meer gebruikt worden). Onderstaande mail is een hoax = (fopvirus), die voor=20 het eerst
in=20 Brazili=EB opdook en nu in diverse talen rondzwerft, waaronder = Nederlands. Het=20 enige doel van
een=20 hoax is paniekzaaien. Negeren dus en in de prullenbak=20 ermee.
 
Overigens kan de worm W32.Magistr.24876@mm = een attachment met zich meevoeren = met
deze=20 filenaam. Let dus even op:
- De=20 Windowsversie van SULFNBK.EXE hoort in WINDOWS\COMMAND thuis, in=20 tegenstelling
 =20 tot wat het mailtje beweert.
- Kom je hem ergens anders = tegen of als=20 attachment, dan is het hoogstwaarschijnlijk een = virus.
 =20 Maar in dat geval hoort iedere goede virusscanner = met de=20 laatste virusdefinities hem als zodanig
 =20 te herkennen (zie boven).
- Kom=20 je SULFNBK.EXE ergens anders tegen en reageert de virusscanner niet, zet = hem dan=20 in
 =20 quarantaine en stuur hem op naar bijvoorbeeld Symantec (Norton=20 AntiVirus).
 =20 (Bron: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/sulfnbk.exe.warning.html -=20 bevat
 =20 instructies om SULFNBK.EXE terug te plaatsen als je hem al hebt = weggegooid,=20 evenals
 =20 instructies om verdachte files op te sturen).
 
Nog=20 even een voorwaarschuwing: deze hoax kan gevolgd worden door een mailtje = dat=20 een
vervanging voor SULFNBK.EXE aanbiedt, = SULFNBK.ZIP. Dit=20 is WEL een virus!
(Bron:=20 http://www.apcug.org/news/= sulfnbk.htm)
 
Groetjes,

--=20
Martin Sinot
Nijmegen
martin@spase.nl=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Schelen=20 [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 = 14:30
To: Paul Wouters; Gea&Gijsbert Westra; W en M de = Waele;=20 Herman De Wael; Jan Vos; Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC); Connie = Thoolen-van Rijn;=20 Rik Terveen; willem Snackers; Martin Sinot; Sytze Sietsma; Marian = Seisener;=20 Marcel Schoof; Golden Tulip De Scheperskamp; Ben Schelen; Ruud Ruijg; = Jan=20 Peter Pals; Maurits Oortwijn; n.lardinois@strabrecht.nl; Ans van der = Meulen;=20 MANEX; Luit.Kelfkens@philips.com; Frans Lejeune; Cees Laas; Ton = Kooijman;=20 Bettie en Kees Kooijman; Jan Kalb; Thea de Jonge;=20 hotel-panoramique@9online.fr; Theo Holtwijk; Bert Hendrix; Michel = Franssen;=20 Else van Eijndhoven; Berend Danker; Con.Holzscherer@philips.com; = Graham=20 Clarke; cardwell@iaehv.nl; Fam Bouwman-Godefrooij; Arnoud Bootsma; = Nancy de=20 Boer; Henk van den Berg; jacques beljaars; Marc van Beijsterveldt; = admiraal;=20 a.lucassen1@chello.nl
Subject: VIRUS
Importance:=20 High

Beste mensen, ook ik had onderstaand = virus op=20 mijn computer!
 
Via via kreeg ik deze mail en voel me = verplicht=20 om jullie dit door te = sturen!!!!!
Uit betrouwbare bron vernam ik, dat iemand, buiten zijn schuld, = ons =20 heeft
besmet en wij mogelijk vervolgens weer jou. Het gaat om een = virus=20 dat
geruisloos voorbij allerlei virusscanners sluipt, dus ook langs = het net=20 door
ons aangeschafte en meest ge-update Norton. Volg a.u.b. zo = snel=20 mogelijk
de onderstaande instructies op en geeft ze door aan al je=20 mailcontacten (als
je het virus hebt). De instructies werken goed. = Ik heb=20 ze net opgevolgd. Echt
doen hoor!
INSTRUCTIES:
Het is mogelijk dat je computer besmet is met een = virus=20 dat erop
geprogrammeerd is om actief te worden gemaakt. Door de=20 'activeer
vertraging' die erin gebouwd zit, wordt het niet ontdekt = door=20 o.a. mcafee en norton.
Niemand weet hoe lang het virus al = circuleert,=20 mogelijk al enkele maanden.
Als het virus geactiveerd wordt, = verwijdert het=20 alle bestanden en mappen
van de harde schijf. Het virus verbreidt = zich via=20 e-mail en infiltreert het
dossier "c:/windows/command.
Indien je = het=20 virus detecteert op je computer zal er dus "grote
schoonmaak" = moeten worden=20 uitgevoerd op alle harde schijven.
maar ook op de computers van = diegenen=20 waarmee je de laatste tijd per
e-mail in contact hebt gestaan, = anders=20 blijft het een eeuwig durende cirkel. Geef
dit bericht daarom door = aan alle=20 contactpersonen in je adresboek.
Om het te vinden en te=20 verwijderen:
Klik op start
vervolgens op zoeken
kies = bestanden of=20 mappen
ga naar zoeken en kies lokale vaste schijven of "c"
typ = op de=20 regel "naam": SULFNBK.EXE
als het bestand wordt gevonden selecteer = het,=20 doch open het NIET door er
met de muis op te klikken
klik op=20 bewerken
vervolgens op alles selecteren
klik op = bestand
vervolgens op=20 verwijderen
sluit het venster en leeg de prullenbak
Na deze = operatie zit=20 je in principe goed, maar je hebt waarschijnlijk zelf
mensen besmet = aan wie=20 je e-mails hebt verzonden.
Mocht je dus het virus hebben, waarschuw = ze dan,=20 zodat ook zij hun
schijven kunnen opschonen.
 
Ben
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C172A1.23F2CB60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 01:51:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALEpIp12019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:51:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe34.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALEpDH12015 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:51:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:44:34 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.125] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] virus hoax Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:43:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: 21 Nov 2001 14:44:34.0850 (UTC) FILETIME=[09882820:01C1729B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Got a 'blml' email from 'Ben' about "SULFNBK.EXE" being a virus. Checking out symantec suggests that it is a hoax. 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 Nov 22 01:54:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALEsb012031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:54:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep12-int.chello.nl (amsfep12-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALEsUH12027 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:54:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from anton-3fnp4arvg ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep12-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20011121144751.DSOP1203.amsfep12-int.chello.nl@anton-3fnp4arvg> for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:47:51 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011121154749.00fb4cd0@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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:47:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] VIRUS In-Reply-To: <003101c17295$3302ce40$16053dd4@b0e7g1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This particular email message is a hoax. The file that is mentioned in the hoax, however, Sulfnbk.exe, is a Microsoft Windows utility that is used to restore long file names, and like any .exe file, it can be infected by a virus that targets .exe files. The virus/worm W32.Magistr.24876@mm can arrive as an attachment named Sulfnbk.exe. The Sulfnbk.exe file used by Windows is located in the C:\Windows\Command folder. If the file is located in any other folder, or arrives as an attachment to a email message, then it is possible that the file is infected. In this case, if a scan with the latest virus definitions and with NAV set to scan all files does not detect the file as being infected, quarantine and submit the file to SARC for analysis by following the instructions in the document How to submit a file to SARC using Scan and Deliver. If you have deleted the Sulfnbk.exe file from the C:\Windows\Command folder and want to know how to restore the file, see the How to restore the Sulfnbk.exe file section at the end of this document. At 03:02 PM 11/21/2001 +0100, you wrote: >>>> Subject: VIRUS ArialDear Friends, ArialI have got on my computer the virus below. Up to now virusscanners like Norton and MCAFFEE cannot delete this virus because of a built-in delay. It sneaks silently past the virusscanner. Maybe it circulates already for months. It infiltrates the c:/windows/command and will delete the data on your hard disk. Follow at once the instructions below and repete it every day! Please inform your relations as well. Arial INSTRUCTIONS In order to find it: click on START, click on FIND, select FILES or FOLDERS, select MY COMPUTER, type the name: SULFNBK.EXE, if it is found select it but do not open it, click on EDIT, click on SELECT ALL, click on FILE, select DELETE, close this and empty also the RECYCLE BIN. Repeat this after every internet contact and inform your relations. Ben <<<<<<<< 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 Thu Nov 22 02:15:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALFEub12054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:14:56 +1100 (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 fALFEoH12050 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:14:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA25605 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:07:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:11:36 -0800 Message-ID: <001501c1729e$cff936e0$c13467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > It may interest you to know that one of my regular OKBridge > partners, a lurker and occasional poster to this list, is > currently playing the Las Vegas NABC. As far as I know, Richard > is playing the same MOSCITO system as he and I play on OKBridge. > Use of the system is restricted in that you must play in at least > mid-chart events (or so I'm reliably informed), but that's a > world of difference from illegal. Its also worth noting that there are almost no Midchart level events here at the ACBL Nationals. Other than the top flight of the bracketed KOs, there are no Midchart level events until the Blue Ribbon Pairs tomorrow and the Reisinger BAMs on Sunday. On the bright side, I was able to play a pleasant session of Acol with David Stephenson. On the down side, David has now seen just how poorly I defend. Hilight of the tournament so far. Playing SAYC, partner and I had the glorious auction 1D - (P) - 2S - (P) 7N And made a cold vulnerable grand slam than was unbelievably missed at the other table. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO/vEJtZbGc4pZHvJEQLwVQCgjjHUvfa+mWiikAce3K6DfOyhP8UAmgLZ qi5SYehraw5A6KH676h51n7c =V2v+ -----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 Nov 22 02:26:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALFQex12066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:26:40 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALFQXH12062 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:26:34 +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 QAA05419; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:16:48 +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 QAA29882; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:19:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121161731.029aba40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:20:49 +0100 To: Martin Kane , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards query In-Reply-To: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC3@PLATO> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:01 21/11/2001 +0000, Martin Kane wrote: > - > AKxx > - > Axx > 3C major penalty card > A > Qxx > - > Qxx > >3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy >West probably has an outstanding diamond winner >EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an > earlier spade, then corrected) > >Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 >am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses >apply lead penalties to West? >ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 >without West being able to cash his diamond? AG : it won't work, because East will have had to play the C3 on your play from the dummy. From there on, the penalty card ceases to exist : it is played. A better idea would be to come back to hand with HQ and play a club from the hand. If dummy holds some intermediates, the fact that East may play the C3 may give you one more trick. A97 may be enough to guarantee two tricks in the suit. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 02:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALFafe12079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:36:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fALFaZH12075 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:36:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:30:06 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E60D@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:30:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Kane wrote: >Ta. That's what it seemed to say in the rules. > >It seemed odd to me, if, for example, East's card was a SP signal >and West had to choose which suit to lead, to cash the setting trick. >Does UI mean West is required to lead the 'wrong' suit ? >Consider a more devious East, who knew he would not have a chance to >discard... The MPC is UI to West, so indeed the signal is forbidden info. West may still lead the 'right' suit, but he must have a good reason of his own to do so. However, West IS allowed to use the fact that East is obliged to play the C3 as soon as possible. BTW, I think there is a reasonably safe way to try the clubs. Cross to the HQ and cash the spade ace (discarding a club). Now if East still has his C3 by now, try the CQ. You have won if East has the king, for he must play the C3. If West has the king (and covers), you can still fall back on the hearts. Alternatively, if you suspect that West has the king of clubs, you might want to try the highest club below the queen or lead a club towards dummy (depending on the value of the X-s), hoping that West cannot cover except with the king. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 02:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALFbgb12091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:37:42 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALFbaH12087 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:37:36 +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 QAA07964; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:27:50 +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 QAA11554; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:30:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121162605.029aeec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:31:51 +0100 To: "Jan Peter Pals" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Who's on first ? In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@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 13:50 21/11/2001 +0100, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > However, no new conventions are allowed over infractions. >You should have > > reminded him that. Of course, 1S is not a convetional bid >here, but he > > presented it as such ... > >Maybe I am missing someting, but.... >Are you saying that in this situation: > >West North East South >2NT 2sp ?? > >East is not allowed to accept and bid a conventional 3C? AG : not really. I wrote 'no new conventions'. If you play Baron, Puppet or whatever else over 2NT, you may use it in this sequence. If you play lebensohl or Rubensohl over 1NT-2S, I guess you are allowed, too. What you aren't allowed to is to play 3C as asking *if you don't normally play 3C as asking over NT bids*. Also, you may open light in front of an OBOOT, to increase the penalties, in the spirit of L72A4, but you may not decide that your otherwise strong 2-bids become Niemeijer in front of an OBOOT. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 02:39:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALFdII12103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:39:18 +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 fALFdBH12099 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:39:12 +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 OAA15288 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:56:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:52:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's on first ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@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 , Jan Peter Pals writes >Alain wrote: > >> However, no new conventions are allowed over infractions. >You should have >> reminded him that. Of course, 1S is not a convetional bid >here, but he >> presented it as such ... > >Maybe I am missing someting, but.... >Are you saying that in this situation: > >West North East South >2NT 2sp ?? > >East is not allowed to accept and bid a conventional 3C? over 2NT 1Sp, I don't think he can bid a conventional 2C though > >JP > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 22 03:15:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALGF1g12165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:15:02 +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 fALGEuH12161 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:14:56 +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 IAA24300; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:08:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200111211608.IAA24300@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] VIRUS In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:47:49 +0100." <3.0.5.32.20011121154749.00fb4cd0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:08:20 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > This particular email message is a hoax. . . . A friend of mine recently pointed out that the e-mail message itself could be considered a virus (or maybe a worm). It shares one common characteristic of viruses, that once it gets on someone's system, it replicates itself and sends itself to everyone in their address book. Of course, the method of replication is a bit different from other viruses---it replicates itself by scaring the pants off the user, causing him to forward it to everyone he knows. -- 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 Nov 22 03:39:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALGd7H12182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:39:07 +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 fALGd0H12178 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-164.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.164]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fALGWMB24932 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:32:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BFB99AA.62D7E998@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:10:18 +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] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions References: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 6:21 PM -0500 11/20/01, Steve Willner wrote: > >This is where I have problems. I suppose if L12C3 is in effect, you > >can do whatever you want, but absent that, it looks like 12C1: +3 IMPs > >to each side. > > Hm. If I've followed this correctly, it appears we have an imp result > at one table, and a raw score at the other. Now what do we do? Don't > we have to have one result (in imps) for team A, and one for team B? > How do we compare the +/- 1100 at the one table to the +3/+3 imps at > the other? > Just this morning (I do strange things when I'm up early) I have discovered the correct way to calculate this. Subject of some later thread. -- 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 Nov 22 04:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALHso812228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:54:50 +1100 (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 fALHsjH12224 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:54:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from plato.purplesoft.com (unknown [217.204.155.68]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242E366C58 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:48:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: by PLATO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:49:37 -0000 Message-ID: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC6@PLATO> From: Martin Kane To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:49:36 -0000 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 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sinot [mailto:Martin@spase.nl] Sent: 21 November 2001 15:30 Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty cards query Martin Kane wrote: BTW, I think there is a reasonably safe way to try the clubs. Cross to the HQ and cash the spade ace (discarding a club). Now if East still has his C3 by now, try the CQ. You have the spade ace represents the 13th spade (they were 33, but East discarded on the third, then followed) won if East has the king, for he must play the C3. If West has the king (and covers), you can still fall back on the hearts. Alternatively, if you suspect that West has the king of clubs, you might want to try the highest club below the queen or lead a club towards dummy (depending on the value of the X-s), hoping that West cannot cover except with the king. 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 Nov 22 08:09:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALL7UB15901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:07:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fALL7OH15897 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:07:24 +1100 (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 fALL0jG06565; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:00:45 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006f01c17275$7d651080$3a87b2d1@c1r5i8> References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <006f01c17275$7d651080$3a87b2d1@c1r5i8> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:51:18 -0500 To: "Thomas Wood" From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Re: MidChart conventions & ACBL Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >To be able to support local unit games, we have devised a frustrating, >minimal-change workaround and use it there. :-\\ At regionals and >nationals, we stick to MidChart-allowed events -- most of the >desirable, more serious events. This is the basic survival strategy for >MidCharters in the ACBL. :-) Thanks, Thomas. I suspected it was something like this. :-( 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/AwUBO/wWA72UW3au93vOEQJkWACfWqD0YVmtAgqgQQeG2wL2Wim98yQAoNpP zAfVoFjiqf/CnuLiyALK+I+n =GjYb -----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 Nov 22 08:27:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALLR9d15927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:27:09 +1100 (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 fALLR3H15923 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:27:04 +1100 (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 QAA03196 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA27869 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111212120.QAA27869@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > I do not see anywhere in the laws a power for > the Director or the AC to 'manufacture' a score on > a board that has not been played because of a > Director's error. L12C3 seems to give an AC the power to do anything it wants, but subject to that exception, I agree with Grattan. (The EBU regulation someone mentioned is an interesting one; presumably it was introduced under L12C3 authority. Of course the situation in the Australia case is completely different than the one the regulation contemplates. Here the board was made unplayable by TD error, not by the action of the side that got the bad score.) > so neither 12C1 nor 12C2 applies directly. > Subject to persuasion otherwise, my initial view of > this situation is that the only law that can be > applied is 12A2. Each side is non-offending and is > awarded +3 imps (Law 86A). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This was my view too. (Note to Ed: the score _for each team_ is +3 IMPs. The 1100 vanishes. Too bad for the side that scored the windfall, but the situation is exactly the same as if the TD had irretrievably fouled the board while carrying it to the other table.) If the match is a KO, then in effect the board is cancelled. The TD owes the team who lost the 1100 a round of drinks and an apology. On further examination, though, I find the last sentence of L87. I think this could reasonably be interpreted as allowing a substitute board. (The TD is the representative of the SO, and a substitute board is the same as a "redeal.") As I understand the story, a substitute board was in fact played. If so, it probably should have counted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 08:31:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALLVCh15940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:31:12 +1100 (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 fALLV7H15936 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:31:07 +1100 (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 QAA03416 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA27879 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111212124.QAA27879@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L6D3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Asking again: what are examples where the TD would order a new deal (or substitute board) under L6D3? How about: 1. board fouled? Does it matter who was at fault? 2. wrong players played against each other (and board not yet played by anyone else)? 3. L16B problem (and board not yet played by anyone else)? 4. others? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 08:48:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALLmCK15960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:48:12 +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 fALLm8H15956 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:48:08 +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 IAA27010 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:51:19 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:27:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Jokers Wild To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:39:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/11/2001 08:32:53 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the most recent edition of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, an international panel discussed this auction: Cross-Imped Calcutta Dlr S Vul Nil WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3C* 4S Dbl Pass Pass 3S The director was summoned after North's 3S bid. North said that when he wrote down 3S, he never intended it as a legitimate call - he was simply having a "bit of fun". East however wanted to accept the insufficient bid and make a further call. How should the director proceed? Panellist David Stevenson wrote: >...this does show some signs of being flippant. So >what? Rule as the Law book says, and let the bidding >continue with 3S being accepted. Panellist Rich Colker wrote: >Earth to East: "Get a life!" I find East's attitude >repugnant; doesn't he have a sense of humour? [snip] >I would rule that North's whimsical 3S bid hadn't >been made (or, alternatively, cancel it) and allow >him to substitute a legal call - presumably a pass. >I would then give East a stern lecture about good >sportmanship and his win-at-all-costs attitude. If >this matter came up on appeal I would not hesitate >to issue an appeal without merit penalty and/or a >procedural penalty (under Law 74A2: interfering with >the enjoyment of the game) for his distasteful >approach to the game. I would then caution North, >after E/W have left the table, to be more >discriminating in his choice of opponents to have >fun with. Which panellist is correct? Perhaps a clue can be found from a Bridge World behavioural-standards poll, results published in the April 2000 Editorial. Jeff Rubens wrote: >The most one-sided vote was on Question 6: In >formal events for experienced players, the rules >[(M) should; (N) should not] be enforced uniformly. >95% of respondents favored (M). Following the >rules strictly is the only sensible way to go. >Perhaps the simplest and most powerful argument is >to consider the alternative: If (N) held sway, >each player, director or judge might at any given >moment be following his or her own standards. No >one could predict how *any* behaviour would be >interpreted, and the upshot would be chaos. 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 Nov 22 08:53:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALLrPS15972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:53:25 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALLrEH15968 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:53:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-50-182.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.50.182] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166fA0-000OuQ-00; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:44:23 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c172d6$0c142860$b6327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3BFB99AA.62D7E998@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:57:40 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > At 6:21 PM -0500 11/20/01, Steve Willner wrote: > > >This is where I have problems. I suppose if > > > L12C3 is in effect, you can do whatever you > > > want, +=+ 12C3 enables one to vary an assigned adjusted score. Before you can vary an assigned adjusted score you need to have one. +=+ > > > Hm. If I've followed this correctly, it appears we > > have an imp result at one table, and a raw score > > at the other. Now what do we do? Don't we have > > to have one result (in imps) for team A, and one > > for team B? > > How do we compare the +/- 1100 at the one > > table to the +3/+3 imps at the other? > > +=+ +3/+3 imps is not a score 'at one table'. Imps are based on comparison of scores at two tables (or occasionally more than two) with a N/S pair comparing with an E/W pair. The Director's error has made this impossible; the +3 imps takes the place of whatever swing there might have been if the board had been played out at the other table. The +/- 1100 has been kicked into a black hole by the Director's failure to have the board played at the other table (in case his ruling did not hold up). I am convinced the Director is well aware by now of the problem he created; I think Mike Amos' remarks, whether intended as they read or as irony, are too capable of being misunderstood to be helpful. I also think the Australian AC probably tried to recover for the Director, but in doing so pretended to powers they did not have. It is the old adage that when in a hole you should stop digging. ~ 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 Nov 22 08:53:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALLrf915984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:53:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fALLrYH15976 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-50-182.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.50.182] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166fAk-000OuQ-00; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:44:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c172d6$2772fe60$b6327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200111202321.SAA18895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:44:29 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > From: "Peter Gill" > > > > Question A > > Can that be justified by the Laws of Bridge? > > Even though I've asked, I've never heard a > clear explanation of when it is proper to > cancel a board (other than slow play). > +=+ The Director has the power to do so when the reason for doing it is "compatible with the laws". The essence of 'compatible' is coexistence, or the possibility of employing two devices together. So cancelling the board is not compatible with the laws if they tell the Director to do something else that he cannot do if he cancels the board. In this case I think it is abundantly clear that the laws tell him that if misinformation has caused damage he is to award an assigned adjusted score. The fact that he was overwhelmed by the complexity in doing so did not constitute grounds for cancelling the board. He should have given it his best shot, after appropriate consultation, drawn attention to the right of appeal, and left it to the outcome of an appeal (if there was one) to settle the problem. ~ 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 Nov 22 09:39:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALMcko16007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:38:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fALMcaH16003 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:38:37 +1100 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA16861; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma016859; Thu, 22 Nov 01 09:31:56 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id fALMVue32476 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fALMVt932470 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:31:55 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id fALMTLv09953 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:29:22 -1000 Message-ID: <0f1801c172dc$5355ad60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" References: <200111212120.QAA27869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:31:54 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Steve, Just to confirm that there was no substitute board played. [There was a 4 board play-off at the request of the team that won (note this was after the appeal was decided) as they felt that the situation was so extraordinary that it was the 'right thing to do'. Also, just for the record. 2H opener had many meaning among which were: [Weak 2 suiter C+H or D+S, minors 11-18, balanced 21-23 and a few more...] Cheers, Peter PS: Just to add some more fun to this case. I was in a team scheduled to meet the loser of the match (that was the subject of the appeal). About 80 minutes into the scheduled session time for our match I asked the directors what was planned for our match (as the session time was 2 hours) and they informed me that our team would get 18 or our average whichever was higher. This event has a knock-out section and a repechage (run as a swiss) and as teams get knocked out into the repechage they enter on 20/round or 80% of the leading score whichever is lower [Q1: Is this normal/fair]. As a result our scores were: 4 x 20 (assigned) 25, 24, 17, 19 + the missing round. Q2: How should our missing round have been scored? Strangely enough the regs. were quiet on this issue! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > I do not see anywhere in the laws a power for > > the Director or the AC to 'manufacture' a score on > > a board that has not been played because of a > > Director's error. > > L12C3 seems to give an AC the power to do anything it wants, but > subject to that exception, I agree with Grattan. (The EBU regulation > someone mentioned is an interesting one; presumably it was introduced > under L12C3 authority. Of course the situation in the Australia case > is completely different than the one the regulation contemplates. Here > the board was made unplayable by TD error, not by the action of the > side that got the bad score.) > > > so neither 12C1 nor 12C2 applies directly. > > Subject to persuasion otherwise, my initial view of > > this situation is that the only law that can be > > applied is 12A2. Each side is non-offending and is > > awarded +3 imps (Law 86A). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This was my view too. (Note to Ed: the score _for each team_ is +3 > IMPs. The 1100 vanishes. Too bad for the side that scored the > windfall, but the situation is exactly the same as if the TD had > irretrievably fouled the board while carrying it to the other table.) > If the match is a KO, then in effect the board is cancelled. The TD > owes the team who lost the 1100 a round of drinks and an apology. > > On further examination, though, I find the last sentence of L87. I > think this could reasonably be interpreted as allowing a substitute > board. (The TD is the representative of the SO, and a substitute board > is the same as a "redeal.") As I understand the story, a substitute > board was in fact played. If so, it probably should have counted. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 22 10:32:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALNW7V16035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:32:07 +1100 (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 fALNW2H16031 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:32:02 +1100 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA23821; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:25:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma023819; Thu, 22 Nov 01 10:25:23 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id fALNPMe19745 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fALNPL919739 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:25:21 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id fALNMhv10264 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:22:44 -1000 Message-ID: <0f8401c172e3$c87359b0$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" References: <200111212120.QAA27869@cfa183.harvard.edu> <0f1801c172dc$5355ad60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:25:13 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > This event has a knock-out section and a repechage (run as a swiss) and as > teams get knocked out into the repechage they enter on 20/round or 80% of > the leading score whichever is lower [Q1: Is this normal/fair]. As a result I have tried to check the official regs but I suspect it in this event it is just '20/round'. I think the 80% of leading score is in other events. Cheers, Peter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 10:48:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fALNlxh16053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:47:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fALNlrH16049 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:47:54 +1100 (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 <20011121234113.IGUD1203.amsfep14-int.chello.nl@anton-3fnp4arvg> for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:41:13 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011122004114.00fb4690@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:41:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] L6D3 In-Reply-To: <200111212124.QAA27879@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:24 PM 11/21/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Asking again: what are examples where the TD would order a new >deal (or substitute board) under L6D3? > >How about: >1. board fouled? Does it matter who was at fault? > no >2. wrong players played against each other (and board not yet played >by anyone else)? > most certainly no >3. L16B problem (and board not yet played by anyone else)? > no >4. others? >- yes a) if in the first round (no one else played the board) the hands were divided 12-14 or so b) if there are more than 52 cards in the board c) perhaps if there are 51 cards in the board (in the first round), but i doubt it, because the TD can add the last card from another pack. i think this is all. no redeal in other cases i think regards, anton >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Thu Nov 22 11:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM02sx16071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:02:54 +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 fAM02nH16067 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:02:49 +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 LAA21120 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:06:00 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:42:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:53:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/11/2001 10:47:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: [snip] >PS: Just to add some more fun to this case. I was in a team >scheduled to meet the loser of the match (that was the subject >of the appeal). About 80 minutes into the scheduled session time >for our match I asked the directors what was planned for our >match (as the session time was 2 hours) and they informed me >that our team would get 18 or our average whichever was higher. > >This event has a knock-out section and a repechage (run as a >swiss) and as teams get knocked out into the repechage they >enter on 20/round or 80% of the leading score whichever is lower >[Q1: Is this normal/fair]. The Canberra Bridge Club runs an event with the same format. Its conditions of contest stipulate the formula of 20/round or 100% of the previous leading score in the repechage Swiss, whichever is lower. The CoC also states that knocked out teams may not be drawn against each other in their first Swiss match. >As a result our scores were: >4 x 20 (assigned) >25, 24, 17, 19 + the missing round. >Q2: How should our missing round have been scored? Strangely >enough the regs. were quiet on this issue! Actually, the regs were not quiet on the issue. 18 vps or the average of other scores (whichever is higher), is what the Oz regs state should be awarded when a Swiss match in a national championship is forfeited. 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 Nov 22 11:34:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM0Xjj16089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:33:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAM0XdH16085 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:33:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-23.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.23]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B376D53E61 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:27:00 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim - rationality Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:25:15 -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 (9.0.2910.0) 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 > Tim West-meads wrote: > 50% is really no problem, there is doubt and it goes to the defenders and > we can all feel equity is served. Personally I don't have a problem with > 60 or 70 percent either. > >The question seems more difficult when the TD is 99% sure that declarer >would get it right (or 98/95/90/80). Is there a threshold at which the >level of doubt is too small to award a trick to defence? Does this >threshold vary between TDs? > >IMO if the TD *is* 98% sure then 70A forbids awarding a trick to defence >since this bears so little resemblance to equity. Unfortunately, although L70A talks of adjudicating the result equitably it then effectively defines doubtful points in terms not of likelihood but of rationality. The accepted way of applying L70A is to consider all possible rational lines and to allow the NOS the benefit of the line most favourable to them. The TD is not instructed to consider the likelihood of any particular line - if it's normal it's included and 'normal' includes *all* lines that are not 'irrational'. The TD may believe that a good player will judge a particular situation correctly 99% of the time. On the 1% of occasions when he gets it wrong, it may that this is because he is thinking about the next trick, the last hand or any number of other things. This would be 'careless', 'very careless' or even 'unbelievably careless' but I don't think we would normally consider it 'irrational'. As L70 is written, it does not matter that declarer would only go wrong 1% of the time, the question is only whether, if he did go wrong, that would have been 'irrational'. ISTM that if the lawmakers wish us to disregard unlikely lines, then they must say so - and define unlikely! 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 Nov 22 12:19:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM1ItG16127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:18:55 +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 fAM1IoH16123 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:18:51 +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 MAA05415 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:22:00 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:58:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L6D3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:04:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/11/2001 12:03:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A club TD may make a logistical error in setting up a walk-in movement. (For example, using a bye-relay Mitchell movement, but discovering too late that the number of tables is odd, not even.) When the movement collapses at the halfway mark, the only practical solution may be for the TD to use L6D3 on *all* boards, followed by split matchpointing of the results. 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 Nov 22 12:19:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM1I1416121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:18:01 +1100 (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 fAM1HtH16117 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:17:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 166iOd-0005cS-03; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:11:19 +0100 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.84.237.26]) by fmrl04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 166iOZ-0ub36eC; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:11:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3BFC4FA9.CB12B748@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:06:49 +0100 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: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing 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 problem from the german doubl - mailing list: Pairs,(small club) no information about vul. North told the following story. He was holding this hand S: - H: AKZ D: KD762 C: D7632 S W N E P - 1D - P - 1NT P - P - 2C(1) - X 2P - X - P(2) - ?(3) Thoughts of north: (1) I dont want to let them play such a cheap contract (2) Nobody knows the meaning of these doubles. I do not even think they do. I think LHO will make a bid, and that might be to high. Pass. (3) What is she thinking about? I am afraid she will pass and partner will have no reason to make any bid. Now North asked East not to bid and called the TD because he wanted to change his call (pass) to 3C. The TD explained the options according to 25b and 3 clubs (undoubled) became the final contract. It was a very bad result, so there was no damage. Here is my question: Is norths behavior allowed by law 25 b or is it an intentional infraction (see law 72 B2) of law 17? That was the complete deal: P: - C: AKT K: KD762 T: D7632 P: KB73 P: D96 C: D985 C: 43 K: ABZ9 K: 84 T: B T: AKZ854 P: AZ8542 C: B762 K: 53 T: 9 Greetings, Volker -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 13:05:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM25FD16161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAM25AH16157 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:05:10 +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 RAA05057; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:58:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200111220158.RAA05057@mailhub.irvine.com> To: BLML CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:06:49 +0100." <3BFC4FA9.CB12B748@vwalther.de> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:58:32 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > A problem from the german doubl - mailing list: > > Pairs,(small club) no information about vul. > North told the following story. He was holding this hand > S: - > H: AKZ > D: KD762 > C: D7632 > > > S W N E > P - 1D - P - 1NT > P - P - 2C(1) - X > 2P - X - P(2) - ?(3) I assume the P in 2P is spades? > Thoughts of north: > (1) I dont want to let them play such a cheap contract > (2) Nobody knows the meaning of these doubles. I do not even think > they do. > I think LHO will make a bid, and that might be to high. Pass. > (3) What is she thinking about? I am afraid she will pass and partner > will have no reason to make any bid. > > Now North asked East not to bid and called the TD because he wanted to > change his call (pass) to 3C. The TD explained the options according > to 25b and 3 clubs (undoubled) became the final contract. It was a > very bad result, so there was no damage. > > Here is my question: > Is norths behavior allowed by law 25 b or is it an intentional > infraction (see law 72 B2) of law 17? I don't get it. North called the Director, and calling the Director is never an infraction unless it's done discourteously, right? North asked whether he had a right to change his call, the Director said he did, and North changed the call. What possible infraction could North have committed? I'm not sure the Director was correct here. L25B says that North has the right to change his call until his LHO calls; however, the WBF has said that this should be legal only in certain circumstances, such as after an obviously stupid call (such as passing partner's splinter bid). Thus L25B shouldn't apply here. However, I'm not clear on whether this has become a binding interpretation of L25B. If this interpretation has no force, then L25B clearly gives North the right to change his pass to 3C. In any case, if the change of call should not have been allowed, it was an error on the Director's part, not an infraction by North. -- 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 Nov 22 18:30:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM7Tqm24112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:29:52 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAM7TiH24108 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:29:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-93-56.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.93.56] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166oAO-000FZZ-00; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:21:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c17326$a81cdd60$385d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200111212120.QAA27869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:22:42 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 21, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > L12C3 seems to give an AC the power to do anything > it wants, but subject to that exception, I agree with > Grattan. (The EBU regulation someone mentioned is > an interesting one; presumably it was introduced > under L12C3 authority. Of course the situation in > the Australia case is completely different than the > one the regulation contemplates. Here the board > was made unplayable by TD error, not by the action > of the side that got the bad score.) > +=+ Law 12C3 only gives power to vary an assigned adjusted score. No assigned adjusted score, no 12C3. It is true that in practice the Assigned AS is often not stated - there is a skip direct to the 12C3 score, but there has to be the notion of an assigned score, not articulated, so the conditions in which an assigned score can be allotted must be present. I missed the mention of an EBU regulation. Not sure what the reference is. I am sceptical, though, about the idea that it is could be 12C3 based. 12C3 is muchly a stand-alone procedure, other actions not being based on 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 Thu Nov 22 19:10:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM8AES24134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:10:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAM8A8H24130 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:10:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0228.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.178.134.228] helo=c1r5i8) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166opY-0006DI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:03:32 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01c1732c$163aebc0$e486b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <001501c1729e$cff936e0$c13467c0@isi.com> Subject: Re: MidChart Conventions & ACBL NABC -- WAS Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:02:51 -0800 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 > > Brian Meadows wrote -- > > It may interest you to know that one of my regular OKBridge > > partners, a lurker and occasional poster to this list, is > > currently playing the Las Vegas NABC. As far as I know, Richard > > is playing the same MOSCITO system as he and I play on OKBridge. > > Use of the system is restricted in that you must play in at least > > mid-chart events (or so I'm reliably informed), but that's a > > world of difference from illegal. > >Richard Willey wrote from Las Vegas NABC -- > Its also worth noting that there are almost no Midchart level events > here at the ACBL Nationals. Other than the top flight of the > bracketed KOs, there are no Midchart level events until the Blue > Ribbon Pairs tomorrow and the Reisinger BAMs on Sunday. Ed, Brian, Richard, et al, Richard Willey claimed that "there are almost no MidChart-level events here at the ACBL Nationals." I don't believe that that picture is at all accurate. As a frequent critic of ACBL convention regulation practices, myself, out of fairness I owe it to ACBL management to list the 111 (91 team & 20 pair), or so, sessions of MidChart-level events which I find in the 10-day Las Vegas schedule. Admittedly, one needs to win each match of the KO events in order to play in the following session. [Additionally, if one's MP accumulation is still low (say, below 1000), admittance to MidChart-approved ranks would be a bit restricted.] However, with new KO events starting most days (covering those who got knocked out on the previous day), an experienced player could have played in dozens (39 max?) of MidChart sessions over the 10 days. Tom Wood, ACBL MidCharter by choice OVERVIEW OF ACBL MIDCHART-APPROVED EVENTS -- At ABCL NATIONALS(NABCs), MidChart Conventions are allowed in: 1) All NABC+ events with no upper MP restrictions, played at a NABC tournament 2) All unrestricted Flight A regionally-rated events at a NABC 3) Any bracket of a bracketed KO at a NABC which contains no team with a bracket designator (avg MPs of entire team or top 2 players) of less than 1000 Master Points [not a very big min-avg, at all] ABBREVIATIONS OF LAS VEGAS NABC TEAM EVENTS -- KCBKO = Kickoff Compact Bracketed KO Teams (9AM) [4] HOUBKO = Houston Bracketed KO Teams (9AM) [4] WASBKO = Washington Bracketed KO Teams (9AM) [4] PHOBKO = Phoenix Bracketed KO Teams (9AM) [4] AMCBKO = AM Compact Bracketed KO Teams (9AM) [4] BKO#1-7 = Bracketed KO Team events, ##1-7 [7x4 sessions] FWCBKO = Farewell Compact Bracketed KO Teams [4] OPNBAM = Open B-A-M Teams [4] WOMBAM = Women's B-A-M Teams [4] SNRKO = Senior KO Teams [5] REIS = Reisinger Board-a Match Teams [6] NASW = North American Swiss Teams [6] STRFLSW#1-3 = Stratiflighted Swiss Team events, ##1-3 [3x2] NOCBKO = Night Owl Compact Bracketed KO Teams (11:30PM)[4] LNCBKO = Late Night Compact Bracketed KO Teams (11:30PM)[4] SUN 11-18 KCBKO-1 Rounds 1&2 9AM BKO#1 Rounds 1&2 Life Master Open Prs - Qual 1&2 Life Master Women's Prs - Qual 1&2 MON 11-19 KCBKO-2 Rounds 3&4 9AM HOUBKO-1 Round 1 9AM BKO#1 Rounds 3&4 BKO#2 Rounds 1&2 Life Master Open Prs - Final 1&2 Life Master Women's Prs - Final 1&2 NOCBKO-1 Rounds 1&2 11:30PM TUE 11-20 HOUBKO-2 Round 2 9AM OPNBAM-1 Qual 1&2 WOMBAM-1 Qual 1&2 SNRKO-1 Round 1 BKO#2 Rounds 3&4 BKO#3 Rounds 1&2 Stratiflighted Open Prs#1 1&2 NOCBKO-2 Rounds 3&4 11:30PM WED 11-21 HOUBKO-3 Round 3 9AM WASBKO-1 Round 1 9AM OPNBAM-2 Final 1&2 WOMBAM-2 Final 1&2 SNRKO-2 Round 2 BKO#3 Rounds 3&4 BKO#4 Rounds 1&2 STRFLSW#1 Rounds 1&2 THU 11-22 HOUBKO-4 Round 4 9AM WASBKO-2 Round 2 9AM SNRKO-3 Round 3 BKO#4 Rounds 3&4 Blue Ribbon Prs - Qual 1&2 FRI 11-23 WASBKO-3 Round 3 9AM PHOBKO-1 Round 1 9AM SNRKO-4 Round 4 BKO#5 Rounds 1&2 Blue Ribbon Prs - Semi 1&2 Stratiflighted Open Prs#2 1&2 LNC-1 Rounds 1&2 11:30PM SAT 11-23 WASBKO-4 Round 4 9AM PHOBKO-2 Round 2 9AM BKO#5 Rounds 3&4 BKO#6 Rounds 1&2 SNRKO-5 Round 5 Blue Ribbon Prs - Final 1&2 LNC-2 Rounds 3&4 11:30PM SUN 11-24 PHOBKO-3 Round 3 9AM AMCBKO-1 Rounds 1&2 9AM REIS-1 B-A-M Teams - Qual 1&2 NASW-1 Swiss Qual 1&2 STRFLSW#2 Rounds 1&2 BKO#6 Rounds 3&4 BKO#7 Rounds 1&2 MON 11-25 PHOBKO-4 Round 4 9AM AMCBKO-2 Rounds 3&4 9AM REIS-2 B-A-M Teams - Semi 1&2 NASW-2 Swiss Semi 1&2 FWCBKO-1 Rounds 1&2&3&4 BKO#7 Rounds 3&4 Stratiflighted Open Prs#3 Rounds 1&2 TUE 11-26 STRFLSW#3 Rounds 1-7 REIS-3 B-A-M Teams - Final 1&2 NASW-3 Swiss Final 1&2 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 20:33:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM9WZ502038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:32:35 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAM9WQH02034 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:32:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-7-127-155.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.7.127.155] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166q7B-000KR2-00; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c17337$ccc14be0$9b7f073e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Strong Tom" References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] mamos and Strong Tom Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:23:31 -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 5.00.2615.200 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, November 21, 2001 1:03 AM Subject: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 > Curious thing about the Norther Hempisphere and > it superior knowledge of bridge. > +=+ Someone in the South put this case on blml and invited world opinion +=+ > > Last time I played there, although not in the UK., > I noticed that you could not reserve your right but > had to call the director immediately after a > hesitation, > +=+ Law 16A1 gives the SO an option to require this. The English regs say that if there is a non-playing TD it is better to call the Director.+=+ > that a psyche of a strong one or two club opener was > ruled to be ilegal > +=+ This is not general in the North. The WBFLC has ruled it lawful to have such a regulation. In EBL Zonal pairs competitions psyches of opening artificial bids are forbidden - and the draft just seen for the next EBL Mixed Teams Championship also has it (but I am not yet sure whether this is intended), in all ACBL sanctioned tournaments psychic openings of artificial bids are prohibited +=+ > > and that youhad to 'play bridge' after your opponents > flagrantly used UI. > +=+ Australia subscribes to the same law on this. There is no redress for any part of damage to a non-offending side that is caused by its own subsequent irrational, wild or gambling action. +=+ > > These things are not found in the laws. > +=+ I take it you mean this is your understanding? +=+ > I also noticed an air of stulification in bidding > with all new ideas since the Precision System were > deemed illegal. > +=+ I am not sure what this means. As between one NBO and another in Zone 1 (i.e. Europe) there are wide diversities in what is/is not allowed. Zone 2 (ACBL) has its own ideas which are different again on what to allow. I am less informed about China, Japan, India, Pakistan and so on. I think that to use an individual's comments as a basis of attack upon the whole of the Northern Hemisphere displays as little knowledge of this half of the globe as you complain of in the reverse direction. +=+ > > I think its does no good for some 'pommy' to take > a shot at the directors of national events in a country > that he has never played bridge in. > +=+ I agree that the obvious failing of one Director in one incident does not demonstrate the general standard, nor even the level of competence of this Director in other matters. But that is largely what I was saying also of generalisations about conditions in the North that are based on a comment by one individual in this hemisphere. +=+ > > I guess the 'colonials' must be put in there place. > It would have been wiser to ask someone like David > Stevenson about how Australian COngresses are run > and directed. > +=+ Some might think his views potentially biased - - there is a suggestion he would like to be invited back to paradise. +=+ > > That would take all the fun out of it though due to > the limiting nature of facts. In reply to his 'solutions' > I am reminded of the old saw of " simple solutions > for simple minds". > +=+ Fair comment, and it applies not only to Mike Amos. We should all do our best to know our facts - and the laws - if we wish to debate them and related issues. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 20:39:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM9di802050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:39:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAM9ddH02046 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:39:39 +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 ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:32:55 +0100 Message-ID: <018d01c17338$bdc435c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121100958.00a1a9a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:33:28 +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: Alain Gottcheiner To: Peter Gill ; BLML Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again > At 00:47 20/11/2001 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > >Ed Reppert wrote: > > >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > >>Your opinions please. > > >>Team scoring > > >>You are a very good player (expert) > > >>You deal (nil all) and open 1 Heart holding > > >>S. A83 H. AQ853 D. A8642 C - > > >>Partner responds 1S and you rebid 2D. > > >>Partner rebids 2H. Is Pass a Logical Action? > > > > > >No. Partner has supported your suit, after bidding 1S > > > >No. Partner has not "supported" your suit. He has called your > >suit but his call is not "support" - 2H is merely "preference", > >e.g. with Qxxx, 10, 3, KJ9xxxx, what can partner do but bid 2H? > > AG : if partner is painted into that particular corner, your question will > be unanswerable. But ... > I don't know how weak 74 hands are treated throughout the World, but in my > particular microcosm they are one-suited. Which means that one would > (should) either answer 3C (if playing WJR) or 1NT, then 3C. Of course, this > might be one of the hands 'suggested' by the tempo, but I would not expect > it from a far-sighted partner. > Would you really go as far as to describe a 4117 with 1NT on the first round (bypassing a four card Major)? And while this may not be a bad idea (only if 1NT is forcing) do you think that the rest of the world would play something like that? My guess is that the vast majority of players shows the four card spade without even thinking about the potential merit of a 1NT call. Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 20:43:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAM9hCk02066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:43:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from atlas.e-sat.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAM9h1H02062 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:43:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from POURNARAS ([192.168.86.22]) by atlas.e-sat.gr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id XM316NC1; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:36:23 +0200 From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:37:26 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c17339$4bcf6e20$1656a8c0@pournaras> 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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLers, Declarer plays 3NT. In a particular suit (say spades) his LHO holds KJxx. After the lead, declarer goes to dummy and plays the 10 of spades from 10xx. RHO and declarer follow with a small card and the LHO starts thinking. He discovers after a while that declarer may follow an alternate plan in order to make his contract, unless he's persuaded to repeat the finesse. So, after some pause he plays the King of Spades. Declarer naturally repeats the finesse against the *marked* Jack, which looses to his LHO again. He calls the director claiming that he has been damaged intentionally. What would you rule based on which law? Cheers, Takis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 21:06:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMA5wn02084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 21:05:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAMA5pH02080 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 21:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27010 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2001 09:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rui) (213.228.145.17) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 22 Nov 2001 09:58:53 -0000 From: "Rui M.L.Marques" To: "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:58:30 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BFC4FA9.CB12B748@vwalther.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It s not allowed by 25b, according to the minutes of the WBFLC (this matter was dealt with in Lille or Maastricht, can´t tell by heart and have no papers with me at the present time). The reason to change the bid cannot be an action by the opponent (one example given at the time by the WBFLC was a comment like "I am certainly not going to pass this"). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Volker R. Walther > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:07 AM > To: BLML > Subject: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing > > > A problem from the german doubl - mailing list: > > Pairs,(small club) no information about vul. > North told the following story. He was holding this hand > S: - > H: AKZ > D: KD762 > C: D7632 > > > S W N E > P - 1D - P - 1NT > P - P - 2C(1) - X > 2P - X - P(2) - ?(3) > > Thoughts of north: > (1) I dont want to let them play such a cheap contract > (2) Nobody knows the meaning of these doubles. I do not even think > they do. > I think LHO will make a bid, and that might be to high. Pass. > (3) What is she thinking about? I am afraid she will pass and partner > will have no reason to make any bid. > > Now North asked East not to bid and called the TD because he wanted to > change his call (pass) to 3C. The TD explained the options according > to 25b and 3 clubs (undoubled) became the final contract. It was a > very bad result, so there was no damage. > > Here is my question: > Is norths behavior allowed by law 25 b or is it an intentional > infraction (see law 72 B2) of law 17? > > > That was the complete deal: > > > P: - > C: AKT > K: KD762 > T: D7632 > > P: KB73 P: D96 > C: D985 C: 43 > K: ABZ9 K: 84 > T: B T: AKZ854 > > P: AZ8542 > C: B762 > K: 53 > T: 9 > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 21:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMAj4q02107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 21:45:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAMAiwH02103 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 21:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from plato.purplesoft.com (unknown [217.204.155.68]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162C066FD0 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:38:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: by PLATO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:39:50 -0000 Message-ID: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC8@PLATO> From: Martin Kane To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Here we go again Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:39:48 -0000 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 -----Original Message----- From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se [mailto:Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se] Sent: 22 November 2001 09:33 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Peter Gill ; BLML Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again > > > >No. Partner has not "supported" your suit. He has called your > >suit but his call is not "support" - 2H is merely "preference", > >e.g. with Qxxx, 10, 3, KJ9xxxx, what can partner do but bid 2H? > > I don't know how weak 74 hands are treated throughout the World, but in my > particular microcosm they are one-suited. Which means that one would > (should) either answer 3C (if playing WJR) or 1NT, then 3C. Of Would you really go as far as to describe a 4117 with 1NT on the first round (bypassing a four card Major)? And while this may not be a bad idea (only if 1NT is forcing) do you think that the rest of the world would play something like that? yes, this is a well known theme. 1NT then the minor is more descriptive My guess is that the vast majority of players shows the four card spade without even thinking about the potential merit of a 1NT call. maybe the second time they get the hand, they'll think of 1N Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ 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 Nov 22 22:33:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMBXST04705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:33:28 +1100 (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 fAMBXIH04701 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:33:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:26:31 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E60F@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:26:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras wrote: >Dear BLMLers, > >Declarer plays 3NT. In a particular suit (say spades) his LHO holds >KJxx. After the lead, declarer goes to dummy and plays the 10 of spades >from 10xx. RHO and declarer follow with a small card and the LHO starts >thinking. > >He discovers after a while that declarer may follow an alternate plan in >order to make his contract, unless he's persuaded to repeat the finesse. >So, after some pause he plays the King of Spades. > >Declarer naturally repeats the finesse against the *marked* Jack, which >looses to his LHO again. He calls the director claiming that he has been >damaged intentionally. > >What would you rule based on which law? If LHO had taken the KS quickly, declarer had no doubt repeated the "marked" finesse and lost. I therefore rule that declarer has been mislead by the play, not by the hesitation. That is no offense, so score stands. If the hesitation suggests anything, it is that LHO has the jack as well... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 23:46:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMCjmQ13952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:45:48 +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 ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAMCjgH13948 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:45:42 +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 NAA12282; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:39:03 +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 NAA19893; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:39:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011122133725.02461710@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:39:56 +0100 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here we go again In-Reply-To: <018d01c17338$bdc435c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121100958.00a1a9a0@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 10:33 22/11/2001 +0100, Rik Terveen wrote: >Would you really go as far as to describe a 4117 with 1NT on the first >round (bypassing a four card Major)? And while this may not be a bad >idea (only if 1NT is forcing) do you think that the rest of the world >would play something like that? >My guess is that the vast majority of players shows the four card >spade without even thinking about the potential merit of a 1NT call. AG : you're frightfully right. They wouldn't think - until it's too late and it transmits UI. But if partner has a limited hand, 3C is as good a contract as 2S, and if hi has a stronger one, 1H-1NT-2S-4S should get us to a reasonable contract. Anway, I would rather miss some good 44s in a major than find strange 51s in the other one. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 22 23:49:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMCneV13964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:49:40 +1100 (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-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAMCnXH13960 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:49:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-126-186.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.126.186] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 166t9u-000PTE-00; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:40:50 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c17353$0a14ce20$ba7e01d5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Rui M.L.Marques" , "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:40:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Volker R. Walther ; BLML Sent: 22 November 2001 09:58 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25 B: strange kind of balancing > It s not allowed by 25b, according to the minutes of the > WBFLC (this matter was dealt with in Lille or Maastricht, > can´t tell by heart and have no papers with me at the > present time). The reason to change the bid cannot be > an action by the opponent (one example given at the time > by the WBFLC was a comment like "I am certainly not > going to pass this"). > +=+ For current pronouncements on this subject visit Schedule 3 to the Minutes of 11th January 2000 and Section 3 of the Minutes of 20th January 2000. It was addressed in Lille but the committee decided it had to change what it was recorded as saying then. The 20th January minute probably deals most clearly with the circumstances presented by VW. ~ 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 Nov 22 23:54:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMCruK13976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:53:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12406.mail.yahoo.com (web12406.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAMCrpH13972 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:53:51 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <20011122124715.43991.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.237.73.254] by web12406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:47:15 GMT Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:47:15 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Zietman?= Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT To: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <000001c17339$4bcf6e20$1656a8c0@pournaras> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --- Takis Pournaras wrote: > Dear BLMLers, > > Declarer plays 3NT. In a particular suit (say > spades) his LHO holds > KJxx. After the lead, declarer goes to dummy and > plays the 10 of spades > from 10xx. RHO and declarer follow with a small card > and the LHO starts > thinking. > > He discovers after a while that declarer may follow > an alternate plan in order to make his contract, unless he's persuaded to repeat the finesse. > So, after some pause he plays the King of Spades. > Declarer naturally repeats the finesse against the > *marked* Jack, which loses to his LHO again. He calls the director claiming that he has been > damaged intentionally. > > What would you rule based on which law? > I would base my ruling on law 73 D 1 which states "It is desirable, though not always required....and that the opponent draws inferences "at his own risk". Also I would note that law 73 F 2 states that 2 requirements are necessary for an adjusted score BOTH no demonstrable bridge reason for the action AND could have known...Since there IS a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking before taking the King then 73 F 2 does not apply. By the way, if there had been no pause before playing the King then the declarer would most surely have taken the marked finesse - the pause gave him the opportunity to draw the correct inference and try the alternative line. Brian Zietman Jerusalem Israel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.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 Fri Nov 23 01:18:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMEHZ214032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:17:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from groupe-decideur.com (nat-emo188.dccs.fr [194.79.146.188]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAMEHNH14028 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:17:26 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200111221417.fAMEHNH14028@rgb.anu.edu.au> From: "Groupe E.M.O" To: Subject: [BLML] Votre entreprise dans l'Annuaire des Décideurs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:10:46 +0100 Reply-To: "Groupe E.M.O" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bonjour, Votre entreprise est-elle référencée dans L'Annuaire des Décideurs ? Grâce à un classement judicieux, (secteur d'activité, métier, spécialisation, effectif, marque, département, ville…) les utilisateurs de l'annuaire accèdent rapidement à la fiche de présentation de votre entreprise. Saisissez dès aujourd'hui l'opportunité de présenter vos prestations à plus de 500.000 dirigeants, cadres et responsables de petites, moyennes et grandes entreprises. Rendez-vous à cette adresse: http://www.annuaire-decideur.com/ pour référencer gratuitement votre entreprise. Très sincèrement. Michel Lombard Tél. 04.38.49.83.81 mailto:annuaire@groupe-decideur.com Decideur.com http://www.decideur.com/ Le site de tous les responsables de l'entreprise Le Club des Décideurs http://www.club-decideur.com/ La communauté des managers qui gagnent L'Annuaire des Décideurs http://www.annuaire-decideur.com/ Le 1er répertoire des entreprises industrielles et commerciales InfosMD.com http://www.infosmd.com/ Le service en ligne du marketing direct et de la communication électronique NetCom Factory http://www.netcomfactory.com/ Votre plate-forme de communication sur le Net Vous avez reçu ce courrier en tant qu'utilisateur des services en ligne du Groupe E.M.O. Nous espérons que cet envoi ne vous a pas importuné. Si tel était le cas, nous vous prions de nous en excuser. Vous recevez cette e-mail à l'adresse: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir les annonces du Groupe E.M.O.: http://www.infos-decideur.com/index.adml?h=57&h_mail1=bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.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 Nov 23 01:24:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAMENpF14045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:23:52 +1100 (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 fAMENlH14041 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:23:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.69]) by mta03ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GN7HBN00.4OD for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:23:47 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-22.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.22]) by PSMAM01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8374/15048383); 23 Nov 2001 00:17:07 Message-ID: <00b501c17360$2ef2c000$16df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:15:47 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: >>PS: Just to add some more fun to this case. I was in a team >>scheduled to meet the loser of the match (that was the subject >>of the appeal). About 80 minutes into the scheduled session time >>for our match I asked the directors what was planned for our >>match (as the session time was 2 hours) and they informed me >>that our team would get 18 or our average whichever was higher. >> >>This event has a knock-out section and a repechage (run as a >>swiss) and as teams get knocked out into the repechage they >>enter on 20/round or 80% of the leading score whichever is lower >>[Q1: Is this normal/fair]. > >The Canberra Bridge Club runs an event with the same format. Its >conditions of contest stipulate the formula of 20/round or 100% >of the previous leading score in the repechage Swiss, whichever >is lower. which is identical to the Regs at the Aussie GNT Finals (which I happened to read on the noticeboard at the event). Is it fair? I think it's not very fair, as teams who drop into the Swiss early have a good chance of obtaining big wins and thus have an advantage over teams who enter the Swiss late. I think that other methods are almost certainly better. Regarding Tom's post, I think that in Australia, bridge admin does a lot of things well and a few very badly. By putting the latter on BLML, I and others learn useful information. For example, I gave the TD involved in the "Dummy Can't Revoke" thread the excellent replies by Martin and Adam, and the TD said thanks because he learnt something. Grattan posted that he thinks that by now the TD involved in this thread would know that he made an error. I'm not so sure about this; when the National Body here claims that there's no such thing as a National Authority that can be appealed to, and when the National AC has erroneously ruled (as they did in Australian Nationals #1 last year) that there can be part of an infraction under Law 12C3, it can be difficult for TDs and others here to learn exactly what's right, as we don't have full faith in the higher parts of our hierarchy. Hence my search for guidance from other sources. Now that I have some info from BLML about the TD's scrapping of the board, I intend to contact the TD soon to give him this info. I think this approach is much more constructive than me merely offering him my opinionated opinion. 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 Fri Nov 23 18:24:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAN7MwC05985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:22:58 +1100 (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 (mailin7.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAN7MrH05981 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from cbcnew ([144.135.24.72]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GN8SI400.EHI; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:22:52 +1000 Received: from 203.40.245.59 ([203.40.245.59]) by bwmam02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8317/19465687); 23 Nov 2001 17:16:07 From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:17:52 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <00b501c17360$2ef2c000$16df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Peter Gill Sent: Friday, 23 November 2001 12:16 AM To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Richard Hills wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: >>PS: Just to add some more fun to this case. I was in a team >>scheduled to meet the loser of the match (that was the subject >>of the appeal). About 80 minutes into the scheduled session time >>for our match I asked the directors what was planned for our >>match (as the session time was 2 hours) and they informed me >>that our team would get 18 or our average whichever was higher. >> >>This event has a knock-out section and a repechage (run as a >>swiss) and as teams get knocked out into the repechage they >>enter on 20/round or 80% of the leading score whichever is lower >>[Q1: Is this normal/fair]. > >The Canberra Bridge Club runs an event with the same format. Its >conditions of contest stipulate the formula of 20/round or 100% >of the previous leading score in the repechage Swiss, whichever >is lower. Peter Gill wrote: which is identical to the Regs at the Aussie GNT Finals (which I happened to read on the noticeboard at the event). Is it fair? I think it's not very fair, as teams who drop into the Swiss early have a good chance of obtaining big wins and thus have an advantage over teams who enter the Swiss late. I think that other methods are almost certainly better. *** Here in Canberra (and I thought in the GNOT Finals) the regs also state that teams will not enter the swiss more than 5VPs behind the leading score.*** Cheers Sean Mullamphy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 23 21:59:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fANAwF908210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:58:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fANAw8H08206 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:58:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fANApUT15259 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:51:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:51 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim - rationality 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: > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > 50% is really no problem, there is doubt and it goes to the defenders > > and we can all feel equity is served. Personally I don't have a > > problem with 60 or 70 percent either. > > > >The question seems more difficult when the TD is 99% sure that declarer > >would get it right (or 98/95/90/80). Is there a threshold at which the > >level of doubt is too small to award a trick to defence? Does this > >threshold vary between TDs? > > > >IMO if the TD *is* 98% sure then 70A forbids awarding a trick to > > defence since this bears so little resemblance to equity. > > Unfortunately, although L70A talks of adjudicating the result equitably > it then effectively defines doubtful points in terms not of likelihood > but of rationality. The two are closely linked. If you have a suit like Axxxx opposite KJTx there are lots of ways to play it each of which caters to different distributions and all of which are quite close. If a suit is Axxx opposite QJT9 then you either finesse or drop (eg Claim was "making 5 or 6 depending on who has the SK"). I believe we would all regard playing for the SK to drop as irrational. It is clearly irrational to take a 5% line when a 50% alternative is available (providing that both lines will be seen, and the difference between them recognised). > ISTM that if the lawmakers wish us to disregard unlikely lines, then > they must say so - and define unlikely! If the lawmakers want us to apply claims laws completely mechanically without equity as the primary criterion they should say so. Personally I would much prefer a TD who thinks "that would never actually happen" to stick with that judgement in his ruling. 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 Nov 24 04:46:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fANHk1w01202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:46:01 +1100 (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 fANHjsH01198 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:45:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-27.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.27]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6289E6321A for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:39:14 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 12 claim - rationality Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:37:30 -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 (9.0.2910.0) 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 > Tim West-meads wrote: >> Unfortunately, although L70A talks of adjudicating the result equitably >> it then effectively defines doubtful points in terms not of likelihood >> but of rationality. > If a suit is Axxx opposite QJT9 then you either finesse or drop > (eg Claim was "making 5 or 6 depending on who has the SK"). > I believe we would all regard playing for the SK to drop as irrational. (sigh) This is a completely different (and therefore irrelevant) situation. This claim statement is nearly perfect (it might have mentioned "finessing"), the intent is obvious and I wouldn't have expected the TD even to be troubled. If OTOH the claimant had simply said "the rest are mine", he would be hard pressed to convince me of his intentions. If he has "lost the plot" playing to drop the SK is certainly not irrational and I think the claim should probably fail (L70E). > It is clearly irrational to take a 5% line when a 50% alternative is > available (providing that both lines will be seen, and the difference > between them recognised). The claimant's grasp of the situation is open to question after the incorrect claim. The TD cannot now be sure that the provisos made here have been met. In these circumstances I don't think even a 5% line should be discarded as 'irrational'. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 24 06:41:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fANJeoP01241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 06:40:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wmpmta01-app.mail-store.com ([194.73.242.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fANJeiH01237 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 06:40:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.13.109]) by wmpmta01-app.mail-store.com (InterMail vM.5.01.02.00 201-253-122-103-101-20001108) with SMTP id <20011123193400.CTAZ13495.wmpmta01-app.mail-store.com@davicaltd> for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:34:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c17456$00558a60$6d0d073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] L6D3 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:23:59 -0000 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: To: Sent: 22 November 2001 02:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] L6D3 > > A club TD may make a logistical error in setting up > a walk-in movement. > > (For example, using a bye-relay Mitchell movement, > but discovering too late that the number of tables is > odd, not even.) > > When the movement collapses at the halfway mark, the > only practical solution may be for the TD to use > L6D3 on *all* boards, followed by split matchpointing > of the results. > ####### A better solution is to fix the movement and carry on. I worked out the necessary fixes for a whole host of such errors some time ago and DWS was kind enough to publish them in downloadable form on his website. David Martin ######## -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 24 09:21:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fANMLGg05987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:21:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fANMLAH05983 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:21:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from YNOTSEMA@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id a.10.1601ea22 (3976); Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:13:46 -0500 (EST) From: YNOTSEMA@aol.com Message-ID: <10.1601ea22.2930241a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:13:46 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10.1601ea22.2930241a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_10.1601ea22.2930241a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/19/01 7:35:19 PM Central Standard Time, karel@esatclear.ie writes: > Hi All > > Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs > > After several rounds of play this position was reached > > North > S 9 > H xx > D xxx > C x > > S J5 > H xxx irrelevant > D - > C xx > South > S 643 > H A > D AQJ > C - > > At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played. > On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in > dummy > and thought W had SJ7 left). > > What is your ruling ?? > > > When asked what line he would have taken he said spade to the nine and on > the probable heart back he would ruff a heart. > How can he ruff a Heart holding the Ace? He would not go back via diamonds as West had led the diamond 2 Of course not as South's not on lead after the trump play > signalled strongly twice for a diamond from partner (who had > ignored him), indicating west was void in diamonds. Is this relevant to > Unless I am missing something, wouldn't West win the Trump lead and get out with a Club forcing Declarer to ruff! Now declarer risks down three by playing trumps, if the 7 is truly out there, as defenders have a Club to cash. Conceding down two indicates that he is about to play his side suit winners rather than cashing his last trump. Tony (first time contributor) --part1_10.1601ea22.2930241a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/19/01 7:35:19 PM Central Standard Time, karel@esatclear.ie writes:


Hi All

Contract 4 spades, declarer south, pairs

After several rounds of play this position was reached

         North
         S 9
         H xx
         D xxx
         C x

S J5
H xxx               irrelevant
D -
C xx
         South
         S 643
         H A
         D AQJ
         C -

At this stage declarer had lost 3 tricks (SA, CAK) - DK already played.
On lead he claimed -2 "losing 2 trumps" (he had forgotten the S7 was in
dummy
and thought W had SJ7 left).

What is your ruling ??


When asked what line he would have taken he said spade to the nine and on
the probable heart back he would ruff a heart.                                              


How can he ruff a Heart holding the Ace?
                                                                                              
He would not go back via diamonds as West had led the diamond 2
  
Of course not as South's not on lead after the trump play

 and had
signalled strongly twice for a diamond from partner (who had ignored him),   indicating west was void in diamonds.  Is this relevant to your ruling ??


Unless I am missing something, wouldn't West win the Trump lead and get out with a Club forcing Declarer to ruff!  Now declarer risks down three by playing trumps, if the 7 is truly out there, as defenders have a Club to cash.  Conceding down two indicates that he is about to play his side suit winners rather than cashing his last trump.

Tony  
(first time contributor) --part1_10.1601ea22.2930241a_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 24 10:45:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fANNiru06022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:44:53 +1100 (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 fANNilH06018 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:44:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.183.26] (helo=dburnbtinternet) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 167PtX-0007QT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:38:07 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: Subject: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:36:13 -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 An appeal on which I had to rule recently: Game all, dealer North None AJ932 QJ92 Q743 AQJ106 74 KQ 10854 73 AK1084 A1052 J8 K98532 76 65 K96 West North East South 1H Pass 1S Pass 2C 2D 2S Dble Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass It's all right. The auction (particularly East's contribution) was wholly ridiculous, but this ruling had nothing to do with the bidding. North led a heart, won by the queen. West led D7, on which North played the jack which held the trick. North led HA, HJ (South discarding C6 and West C2), then another heart to East's 10 on which South threw S2 and West S6. Declarer took a spade finesse, North throwing C3, then played ace and another spade on which North threw C4 and H3 while South won with the king (dummy discarded C8). This left: None None Q92 Q7 J None None None 7 AK108 A102 J 98 None 6 K9 South, a deliberative sort, was contemplating his lead to the ninth trick when West said: "I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of spades, making the rest." Those were the facts on which the director had to rule. What should his process have been in arriving at his decision? Should you require any further information, I am happy to supply it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 24 12:51:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAO1oYr06072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:50:34 +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 (pcow024o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.126]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAO1oSH06068 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:50:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from pcow024m.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:43:48 +0000 Received: from mikeamos (unverified) by pcow024m.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with SMTP id ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:43:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c17489$a76f10e0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "David Burn" , "BLML" References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:45:10 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now guys (especially those in the Southern Hemisphere) this is your chance - for lurking in the background I was the chief TD who ruled here Love mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? > An appeal on which I had to rule recently: > > Game all, dealer North > > None > AJ932 > QJ92 > Q743 > AQJ106 74 > KQ 10854 > 73 AK1084 > A1052 J8 > K98532 > 76 > 65 > K96 > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1S > Pass 2C 2D 2S > Dble Pass 3D Pass > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > It's all right. The auction (particularly East's contribution) was wholly > ridiculous, but this ruling had nothing to do with the bidding. North led a > heart, won by the queen. West led D7, on which North played the jack which > held the trick. North led HA, HJ (South discarding C6 and West C2), then > another heart to East's 10 on which South threw S2 and West S6. Declarer > took a spade finesse, North throwing C3, then played ace and another spade > on which North threw C4 and H3 while South won with the king (dummy > discarded C8). This left: > > None > None > Q92 > Q7 > J None > None None > 7 AK108 > A102 J > 98 > None > 6 > K9 > > South, a deliberative sort, was contemplating his lead to the ninth trick > when West said: > > "I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of > spades, making the rest." > > Those were the facts on which the director had to rule. What should his > process have been in arriving at his decision? Should you require any > further information, I am happy to supply 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 24 14:03:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAO32tR06139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:02:55 +1100 (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 fAO32oH06135 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:02:50 +1100 (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 VAA11298 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:56:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA08741 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:56:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:56:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Law 12C3 only gives power to vary an assigned > adjusted score. No assigned adjusted score, no 12C3. Thanks, Grattan. I had completely overlooked the "assigned" in L12C3. Rather than offer some lame excuse, I'll just hope I wasn't the only person to have missed it. > I missed the mention of an EBU regulation. Not > sure what the reference is. I am sceptical, though, > about the idea that it is could be 12C3 based. I haven't checked the Orange Book (or the White Book either for that matter), but a poster on BLML mentioned a regulation that makes logical sense but isn't an obvious outcome from the Laws. Apparently, if one side achieves a dismal result and then manages to foul the board, instead of the "obvious" -3 IMPs, they are to be given an IMP result based on an assigned score at the other table (which couldn't play the board because it was fouled). As you say, this doesn't seem to follow from L12C3, but I don't see just where it does come from. Maybe 72B1? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 24 14:16:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAO3GNR06156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:16:23 +1100 (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 fAO3GIH06152 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:16:18 +1100 (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 WAA11412 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA08980 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:09:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:09:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111240309.WAA08980@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L6D3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks to all who have commented on this question, especially Grattan for the general principle. I wonder whether L6D3 (or possibly 12C1) should be amended to allow a redeal instead of an artificial score whenever the board has not previously been played. Why not play a board whenever possible? (Example: boards are made up by players prior to start of play, then passed to the next table to be played. Some loudmouth making up a board makes a comment about the cards and is overheard at the next table. This is _almost_ a L6D1 situation -- it may be logically equivalent, depending on the exact words -- but not quite. Why not handle it with a redeal? Of course you fine the loudmouth, whatever else you do!) Actually, L6D1 must need a qualification that the board has not previously been played. You wouldn't redeal after round 1, would you, but the current text seems to require a redeal, if, say, the board arrives at the table with a card face up. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 24 14:17:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAO3H7I06168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:17:07 +1100 (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 fAO3H2H06164 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:17:02 +1100 (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 WAA11421 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA09002 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:10:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:10:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111240310.WAA09002@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Jokers Wild Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David S in response to the Australian insufficient bid: > >...this does show some signs of being flippant. So > >what? Rule as the Law book says, and let the bidding > >continue with 3S being accepted. I'm with David. The joker caused the problem; let his opponents have their way. Cite 72A1 if you have to. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 24 20:36:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAO9YiP24771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:34:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAO9YcH24767 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:34:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.45.66] (helo=dburnbtinternet) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 167Z6J-0001WE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:27:56 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:26:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ Law 12C3 only gives power to vary an assigned > > adjusted score. No assigned adjusted score, no 12C3. > > Thanks, Grattan. I had completely overlooked the "assigned" in L12C3. > Rather than offer some lame excuse, I'll just hope I wasn't the only > person to have missed it. You are not. While the use of L12C3 by TDs has been hailed in this country and elsewhere as an unmixed blessing (reduces the number of appeals by quite a lot), I am beginning to have doubts about the whole business. I was recently asked, having given a ruling in a case involving a contested claim, why a weighted score had not been given on the basis that some of the time the claimer would have made the tricks he claimed, and some of the time he would not. Now, this question is (as I expect readers of this list to know) completely absurd, yet it was asked in all seriousness by a senior EBU official. What is happening under L12C3 is this: something happens; a director is called, he goes away and then comes back to the table, where he says in effect: "abracadabra mumbo jumbo alakazam you get 58% and you get 42%". This seems about right to the players, so they don't appeal (especially since, if they were playing in Paris, the Daily Bulletin told them on more than one occasion not to bother appealing because it wasn't worth it). But scores are being split where they should not be split, and players have expectations that are quite unjustified as to what a director or an AC might do in order to "restore equity". 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 Nov 25 07:57:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAOKuf525117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:56:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAOKuYH25113 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-45-15.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.45.15] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167ji9-000FgW-00; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c17529$b1fad800$0f2d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "BLML" References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:39:05 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? > > Those were the facts on which the director > had to rule. What should his process have > been in arriving at his decision? Should you > require any further information, I am happy > to supply it. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ A possible start would be to hear the other side's objections? ~ 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 Nov 25 08:36:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAOLaXX25140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:36:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAOLaRH25136 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:36:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp4161.mosquitonet.com [209.161.164.161]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fAOLR9B09105 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:27:09 -0900 Message-ID: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.com> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:29:31 -0900 From: Gordon Bower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [de] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] A new kind of MI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have recently begun work as a TD for SWAN Games, running online tournaments a few times a week. This, as you may imagine, is a very different type of directing: there are no revokes or actions out of rotation, which are the bread and butter of face-to-face rulings; instead, there is software you have to prod into moving the players, and prople disconnect for random lengths of time constantly, so finding a fill-in is not a "first 10 minutes of the session only" problem. I have run into several situations where I am unsure how to apply the existing laws to online bridge -- this is a fact of life until the "online laws" get put into final form and released which sounds like it is a couple years away yet. Expect several more questions on this list from me about that soon. :) Anyway -- last night, in my fourth session, I was finally asked to give a bridge ruling. North deals, EW are vulnerable. West has been disconnected and hasn't returned for a few minutes, but is expected to come back as soon as he can. In this situation our usual practice is to use a copy of GIB as a substitute. West North East South (GIB) -- 1S Pass 1NT 2D Pass 2NT Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass GIB announces the meanings of all its calls. 2D was announced as "13+ HCP, 5+ diamonds." 3H was announced as as "13+ HCP, 5+ diamonds, 4+ hearts." Dummy hits with xx K7xx AQ9xxx x, and all three humans at the table howl bellow for a director at once. East, who has 12 HCP and KQxx spades, tells me he would never have bid 3NT if GIB hadn't very clearly promised possession of 13+ HCP. North-South are on track for a somewhat nonsensical top, but they are both clear that they'd much rather play a normal contract with a meaningful play period, than allow a stupid bot to force a top on them and skew the scores for the rest of the field to boot. First decision to make: has GIB psyched (twice) but correctly explained his agreement? Or has GIB given misinformation? [If you rule GIB has psyched, of course, tough cheese. Everyone is stuck with playing out the hand and accepting the table result.] To East, you can say tough cheese anyway, if you want to, at least. We aren't entitled to redress when our partners do silly things. Should it affect your ruling if partner is a temporary substitute? Should it matter if partner is human or not? North-South, however, have made it clear they want an adjustment. I can imagine other situations following bizarre misbids with 4 humans where actively ethical NOS might refuse a freak result and ask to be given the most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred. NS have 8 tricks in spades, EW have 9 tricks in diamonds. Noone in his right mind would play notrump either direction. Plausible results include 3DW making, 3SN down one, and 2SN making. (All those results appeared among the other tables who played this board after the same 1S-P-1NT-2D start. Two tables managed to reach 4Sx down two, which is just plain silly, and a reminder why we don't use the recap sheet as our sole basis in deciding what is likely or at all possible...) I am hoping that somewhere out there, there is someone who agrees that I was right to adjust the score to 2SN+2, 110 to NS, -110 to EW. It occurs to me someone might argue for NS 110 since they asked for it, but force EW to keep their -300. Or even, to argue that the matchpoints for the other EWs should be based on -110 at this table, but this particular EW should be forced to keep their bottom. (I personally don't care for either of these ideas. I still wouldn't care for either of them if Swan's scoring software could handle either of them.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 25 09:27:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAOMR7h25170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:27:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAOMR1H25166 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:27:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from user117.net121.lv.sprint-hsd.net ([208.13.140.117] helo=buscenter) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167l9p-0000rX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:20:21 -0800 Message-ID: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> From: "business center" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:19:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C174F3.168870C0" 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_0020_01C174F3.168870C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Great fun here: met all sorts of people. Not only have I met Marvin French, but more important: I have met = Alice!!!!! I cannot wait for Marv to show you all Appeals Case 3 in the bulletin. = Trust me, that is **NOT** what we decided!!!!!! ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C174F3.168870C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
  Great fun here: met all sorts of = people.
 
  Not only have I met Marvin = French, but more=20 important:  I have met Alice!!!!!
 
  I cannot wait for Marv to show = you all=20 Appeals Case 3 in the bulletin.  Trust me, that is **NOT** what we=20 decided!!!!!!
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C174F3.168870C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 25 09:32:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAOMWUF25380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:32:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAOMWOH25362 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:32:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from user117.net121.lv.sprint-hsd.net ([208.13.140.117] helo=buscenter) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167lF2-0005Jl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:25:44 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01c17536$e5a89900$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> From: "business center" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] UI and L24 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:25:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C174F3.D720A3C0" 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_002C_01C174F3.D720A3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The spade ace is dropped during the auction, and a fairly boring = ruling then appeal follows based on whether partner's actions during the = bidding were based on the UI from seeing the SA. However, the AC did ask one pertinent question. How do you prove that = the SA is UI? There is no doubt that it becomes UI if it remains as a penalty card = during the play [and does not matter during the play if it belongs to = declarer or dummy]. But how do you prove it is UI during the auction? --=20 David Stevenson Currently in Las Vegas Copy emails to please Web: blakjak.com ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C174F3.D720A3C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
  The spade ace is dropped during = the auction,=20 and a fairly boring ruling then appeal follows based on whether = partner's=20 actions during the bidding were based on the UI from seeing the = SA.
 
  However, the AC did ask one = pertinent=20 question.  How do you prove that the SA is UI?
 
  There is no doubt that it = becomes UI if it=20 remains as a penalty card during the play [and does not matter during = the play=20 if it belongs to declarer or dummy].  But how do you prove it is UI = during=20 the auction?
 
 
--
David Stevenson    = <bluejak666@=20 hotmail.com>
Currently in Las Vegas
Copy emails to <bridge@blakjak.com> = please
Web: =20 blakjak.com
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C174F3.D720A3C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 25 09:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAOMZu025796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:35:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAOMZoH25779 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:35:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from user117.net121.lv.sprint-hsd.net ([208.13.140.117] helo=buscenter) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167lIM-0000HG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:29:10 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> From: "business center" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:28:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two things: first, when I posted the message below it might have helped if I had signed it. Second it is far too easy to send in the wrong format using Outlook Express. Why does Bill Gates refuse to follow industry standards? ================================= Great fun here: met all sorts of people. Not only have I met Marvin French, but more important: I have met = Alice!!!!! I cannot wait for Marv to show you all Appeals Case 3 in the bulletin. = Trust me, that is **NOT** what we decided!!!!!! ================================= -- David Stevenson Currently in Las Vegas Copy emails to please Web: blakjak.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 25 11:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP0fiw19624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:41:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP0fbH19598 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:41:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-33qtmg7.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.218.7] helo=mindspring.com) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167nG4-0005Qz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:34:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3C003D2E.D74EAD3F@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:37:02 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] A new kind of MI References: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > [On Swan] > > Anyway -- last night, in my fourth session, I was finally asked to give > a bridge ruling. > > North deals, EW are vulnerable. > > West has been disconnected and hasn't returned for a few minutes, but is > expected to come back as soon as he can. In this situation our usual > practice is to use a copy of GIB as a substitute. > > West North East South > (GIB) > -- 1S Pass 1NT > 2D Pass 2NT Pass > 3H Pass 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > GIB announces the meanings of all its calls. 2D was announced as "13+ > HCP, 5+ diamonds." 3H was announced as as "13+ HCP, 5+ diamonds, 4+ > hearts." Dummy hits with xx K7xx AQ9xxx x, and all three humans at the > table howl bellow for a director at once. > > East, who has 12 HCP and KQxx spades, tells me he would never have bid > 3NT if GIB hadn't very clearly promised possession of 13+ HCP. > North-South are on track for a somewhat nonsensical top, but they are > both clear that they'd much rather play a normal contract with a > meaningful play period, than allow a stupid bot to force a top on them > and skew the scores for the rest of the field to boot. > > First decision to make: has GIB psyched (twice) but correctly explained > his agreement? Or has GIB given misinformation? [If you rule GIB has > psyched, of course, tough cheese. Everyone is stuck with playing out the > hand and accepting the table result.] GIB makes anti-system bids with fair frequency. It also does things that are outright dumb. The instant hand looks like it's worth about 11 to me; I think this is closer to a deviation than either of the above. I suspect its simulation indicated 2D was percentage. > > To East, you can say tough cheese anyway, if you want to, at least. We > aren't entitled to redress when our partners do silly things. Should it > affect your ruling if partner is a temporary substitute? Should it > matter if partner is human or not? > > North-South, however, have made it clear they want an adjustment. I can > imagine other situations following bizarre misbids with 4 humans where > actively ethical NOS might refuse a freak result and ask to be given the > most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred. There's no infraction. I think educating the field on these things is a positive step. > > I am hoping that somewhere out there, there is someone who agrees that I > was right to adjust the score to 2SN+2, 110 to NS, -110 to EW. Not here. If your conditions permit GIB to play, them's the breaks. GIB does some genuinely amazing dumb things; you've got to eat them either way. This is not close to the edge of GIB's eccentricity. --JRM, allied with the Empire -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 25 13:21:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP2KSC26884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:20:28 +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 (pcow024o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.126]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP2KMH26880 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:20:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from pcow024m.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:13:40 +0000 Received: from mikeamos (unverified) by pcow024m.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with SMTP id for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:13:40 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:14:26 -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 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 came up today - not sure the TD got it right Dealer South West North East South Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North has passed out of turn The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? 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 Nov 25 13:22:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP2MD526896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:22:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP2M7H26892 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:22:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-50-134.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.50.134] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167onC-0006kB-00; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:13:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c17557$2d2ccd80$86327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:15:39 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > I was recently asked, having given a ruling in a case involving a > contested claim, why a weighted score had not been given on > the basis that some of the time the claimer would have made > the tricks he claimed, and some of the time he would not. > Now, this question is (as I expect readers of this list to > know) completely absurd, yet it was asked in all seriousness > by a senior EBU official. > +=+ Perhaps absurdity is not quite the word. There was Appeal no.41 in Tenerife involving a claim. Two very senior Directors had consulted and awarded a weighted score under 12C3. The AC said that there was no 'assigned adjusted score' to vary: the wording in 69B is that the "board is rescored" and the AC (being the 'national authority for the purposes of Law 93C' under the CoCs) deemed rescoring the board not to be an award of an assigned adjusted score, so that no 12C3 adjustment was authorized. If you look at the final item in the WBFLC minutes in Paris, you will find a subject put back to the next meeting. Antonio Riccardi wishes to pursue his different view in this matter; that is to say, I am not sure whether he wishes to challenge the Tenerife interpretation of the law or whether he now simply wishes to change the law to allow of a 12C3 decision in such a case. If the latter, I would not be prepared to reject the thought out of hand; it should be discussed - what works for other rulings might also work for a contested claim or withdrawn acquiescence. On the other hand it could perhaps work to increase the number of challenges in apparently straightforward situations. +=+ > > What is happening under L12C3 is this: something > happens; a director is called, he goes away and then > comes back to the table, where he says in effect: > "abracadabra mumbo jumbo alakazam you get 58% > and you get 42%". This seems about right to the > players, so they don't appeal (especially since, if > they were playing in Paris, the Daily Bulletin told > them on more than one occasion not to bother > appealing because it wasn't worth it). But scores are > being split where they should not be split, and players > have expectations that are quite unjustified as to > what a director or an AC might do in order to "restore > equity". > +=+ I have no problem with the Director who uses a short cut to assign a 12C3 adjustment without actually first assessing the 12C2 adjustment and then varying it. In those circumstances an assigned score is notionally determined and then varied; but I am not at all happy if any Director (or AC) seeks to act under 12C3 when the Laws do not empower the award of an assigned adjusted score. I do not recall such a case other than the one in Tenerife that was struck out. I must read again the Tabiano Seminar paper on 12C3 to see how far this aspect was emphasised. ~ 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 Nov 25 13:29:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP2TLR26909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:29:21 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP2TFH26905 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:29:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-35-123.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.35.123] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 167owD-000PLe-00; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:22:33 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c17558$2c09dbe0$86327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Bower" , "BLML" References: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new kind of MI Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:22:45 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 9:29 PM Subject: [BLML] A new kind of MI > > I have run into several situations where I am unsure how to apply the > existing laws to online bridge -- this is a fact of life until the > "online laws" get put into final form and released which sounds like it > is a couple years away yet. Expect several more questions on this list > from me about that soon. :) > =+= There is now an official WBF Code of Laws for online bridge. It will be going up on several web-sites in the course of the next week or so. Anna Gudge will let you know as soon as she has been able to publish the Code. ~ 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 Nov 25 14:49:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP3mPw04282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:48:25 +1100 (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 fAP3mJH04270 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:48:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 7937 invoked by uid 50005); 25 Nov 2001 03:41:37 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpb with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4171. . Clean. Processed in 0.774489 secs); 25 Nov 2001 03:41:37 -0000 Received: from wellscs ([24.229.82.228]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Nov 2001 03:41:35 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:41:54 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> 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 Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:28:43 -0800, David Stevenson wrote: > Why does Bill Gates refuse to follow industry >standards? > Bill Gates appears to be of the opinion that what he decides upon automatically becomes the industry standard. Unfortunately, at least so far as programming for Wintel platforms is concerned, it seems that he's largely correct. 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 Sun Nov 25 15:20:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP4Jnj07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:19:49 +1100 (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 fAP4JhH07925 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:19:43 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 14049 invoked by uid 50005); 25 Nov 2001 04:13:02 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4171. . Clean. Processed in 0.107741 secs); 25 Nov 2001 04:13:02 -0000 Received: from wellscs ([24.229.82.228]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Nov 2001 04:13:01 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A new kind of MI Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:13:20 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.com> In-Reply-To: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.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 Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:29:31 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > >GIB announces the meanings of all its calls. 2D was announced as "13+ >HCP, 5+ diamonds." 3H was announced as as "13+ HCP, 5+ diamonds, 4+ >hearts." Dummy hits with xx K7xx AQ9xxx x, and all three humans at the >table howl bellow for a director at once. > I believe that GIB's explanations are hard coded, and thus represent what the bid *should* mean. However, the way in which GIB determines its "best" bid is independent of the explanation. If you want to see some silly explanations, ask GIB to explain its partner's bids. If you want to see some *extremely* silly explanations, set GIB to play Acol first. In fairness to Matt Ginsberg, he has openly admitted on the GIB discuss list that he does not really know the first thing about Acol, and that GIB's "Acol" is actually the Standard American engine with 4 card majors and a weak 1NT grafted on top of it. If Swan Games are using GIB routinely as a fill-in for crashed players, you need to educate your subscribers that GIB still produces far more inexplicable bids when playing with a human than does any human partner. As an example, I reported a bug to Matt a couple of days ago, GIB set to play its alleged version of Acol, the bidding went 1H-pass-pass. The 1H bid was first hand. The GIB that passed as responder held a balanced (3-2-4-4) 12 count. It may well be that GIB is far more reliable when it's set to play one of the American systems, because my opinion of GIB's idea of Moscito is about on a par with my opinion of its idea of Acol. 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 Sun Nov 25 16:07:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP56b415264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:06:37 +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 fAP56UH15260 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:06:32 +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 FAA25465 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 05:00:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 04:58:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200111240256.VAA08741@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 <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ Law 12C3 only gives power to vary an assigned >> adjusted score. No assigned adjusted score, no 12C3. > >Thanks, Grattan. I had completely overlooked the "assigned" in L12C3. >Rather than offer some lame excuse, I'll just hope I wasn't the only >person to have missed it. > >> I missed the mention of an EBU regulation. Not >> sure what the reference is. I am sceptical, though, >> about the idea that it is could be 12C3 based. > >I haven't checked the Orange Book (or the White Book either for that >matter), but a poster on BLML mentioned a regulation that makes logical >sense but isn't an obvious outcome from the Laws. Apparently, if one >side achieves a dismal result and then manages to foul the board, >instead of the "obvious" -3 IMPs, they are to be given an IMP result >based on an assigned score at the other table (which couldn't play the >board because it was fouled). > >As you say, this doesn't seem to follow from L12C3, but I don't see just >where it does come from. Maybe 72B1? I've always used 72B1 for this sort of thing. 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 Nov 25 16:22:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP5Mfa15281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:22:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP5MYH15277 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:22:35 +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 FAA25492 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 05:16:06 GMT Message-ID: <3jbG2jA44HA8Ew8a@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 05:14:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling References: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos>, mike amos writes >This came up today - not sure the TD got it right > >Dealer South > >West North East South > Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs > >South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North >has passed out of turn >The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South >opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT > >To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? > >Mike > 1) Allow West to accept 3 Clubs, North must pass once. if not 2) Cancel 3 club call, allow East to condone the POOT, South must repeat his call if East passes, no further penalty 3) If east bids South may bid clubs (and silence North for one round or the whole auction depending on the meaning of the club call) or South can bid anything else (except double, I think) and silence pard throughout if not 4) Cancel the POOT, make South bid 3C, and North must pass once. West should not accept the 3C call as he gets to find out what East thinks before getting back to having to accept it. East should choose to bid or not accept the POOT - and I'd explain this to EW, as well. No doubt I've got this all wrong, but I don't have my Laws to hand 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 Nov 25 16:45:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP5jIW17020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:45:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fAP5jBH17011 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:45:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fAP5cS622807 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:38:28 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> References: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:34:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Why does Bill Gates refuse to follow industry >standards? Because he thinks he's God. 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/AwUBPACD3b2UW3au93vOEQIHsACffaLvFbAfK6PoDZpc5hx81/ikZi0AniVE 5z1ijdKvhc9khBJUq/yq9YBh =u2Ym -----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 Nov 25 17:28:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAP6S3e24010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:28:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAP6RwH23998 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:27:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p606-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.98]) by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id RAA26758 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:21:15 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p606-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.98] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011125171921.010b5210@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:19:21 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling In-Reply-To: <3jbG2jA44HA8Ew8a@asimere.com> References: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:14 25/11/01 +0000, John Probst wrote: >In article <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos>, mike amos > writes >>This came up today - not sure the TD got it right >> >>Dealer South >> >>West North East South >> Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs >> >>South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North >>has passed out of turn >>The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South >>opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT >> >>To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? >> >>Mike >> >1) Allow West to accept 3 Clubs, North must pass once. The old chronology problem! I would initially give East the opportunity of accepting the POOT per Law 29A. If it is accepted then 3C is cancelled but reamins UI to North. If the POOT is not accepted, then it is cancelled but North will have to Pass for one round. I also cancel 3C and South gets another go knowing that North will have to Pass. Again potential UI and maybe lead penalties depending on whether Clubs are mentioned now (or later). > if not >2) Cancel 3 club call, allow East to condone the POOT, South must repeat >his call if East passes, no further penalty >3) If east bids South may bid clubs (and silence North for one round or >the whole auction depending on the meaning of the club call) or South >can bid anything else (except double, I think) and silence pard >throughout > if not >4) Cancel the POOT, make South bid 3C, and North must pass once. With your 2,3 & 4 you are treating 3C as a BOOT. I don't think it is. Surely North's requirement to Pass should be linked to North's POOT, not South's actions. (South was after all the designated dealer on this board!) >West should not accept the 3C call as he gets to find out what East >thinks before getting back to having to accept it. East should choose to >bid or not accept the POOT - and I'd explain this to EW, as well. > >No doubt I've got this all wrong, but I don't have my Laws to hand Well, I'm not certain either, but we certainly disagree as to which aspect of the auction (POOT or 3C) the TD should address first. Laurie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 01:58:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPEvAk06095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:57:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oldmail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAPEv4H06091 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:57:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d052.iae.nl [212.61.3.52]) by oldmail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B837A20F6D for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:50:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:48:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe it is not new on BLML but for me it is. Pairs:12 LOL Board 14 E/- North A 8 6 A J 6 10 7 9 8 6 5 3 West J 10 9 3 Q 3 2 K 5 A K Q 10 East 7 5 4 2 K 10 7 5 J 9 4 7 4 South KQ 9 8 4 A Q 8 6 3 2 J 2 Board14 E/- A 8 6 A J 6 10 7 9 8 6 5 3 J 10 9 3 7 5 4 2 Q 3 2 K 10 7 5 K 5 J 9 4 A K Q 10 7 4 K Q 9 8 4 A Q 8 6 3 2 J 2 West north east south pass 1 D 1 NT 1 NT double pass When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitudes pass in double. East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. Question one: Can he decide: it is to late and the auction continues? Question two: Is Law 27B3 to be applied and the double and the pass are cancelled? Question three: Law 25B1 revers to Law 27 but the LHO has already bid. Nevertheless will NS receive Av minus? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 07:08:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPK7nx12137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 07:07:49 +1100 (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 fAPK7fH12133 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 07:07:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-134.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.134]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 73BBF1D5248 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:00:57 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:59:08 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Burn writes: >Game all, dealer North > > None > AJ932 > QJ92 > Q743 >AQJ106 74 >KQ 10854 >73 AK1084 >A1052 J8 > K98532 > 76 > 65 > K96 > >West North East South > 1H Pass 1S >Pass 2C 2D 2S >Dble Pass 3D Pass >3NT Pass Pass Pass > >It's all right. The auction (particularly East's contribution) was wholly >ridiculous, but this ruling had nothing to do with the bidding. North led a >heart, won by the queen. West led D7, on which North played the jack which >held the trick. North led HA, HJ (South discarding C6 and West C2), then >another heart to East's 10 on which South threw S2 and West S6. Declarer >took a spade finesse, North throwing C3, then played ace and another spade >on which North threw C4 and H3 while South won with the king (dummy >discarded C8). This left: > > None > None > Q92 > Q7 >J None >None None >7 AK108 >A102 J > 98 > None > 6 > K9 > >South, a deliberative sort, was contemplating his lead to the ninth trick >when West said: > >"I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of >spades, making the rest." > >Those were the facts on which the director had to rule. What should his >process have been in arriving at his decision? Should you require any >further information, I am happy to supply it. and Grattan has added: > +=+ A possible start would be to hear the other side's objections? ~ G ~ +=+ How about "Declarer has claimed the remaining five tricks when he has only four top winners" ? As the cards lie, declarer needs a diamond finesse for five tricks, which he has not mentioned in his claim statement. He may always have intended to finesse (convinced from the play that the Q was right) and just forgotten to say so. OTOH, maybe he has miscounted his tricks, forgotten the Q was out or thinks the Q is dropping. Whatever, L70E deals specifically with this problem, playing to drop the DQ would be far from irrational and IMO the NOS are clearly entitled to a trick. 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 Nov 26 08:30:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPLTFP13726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:29:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAPLT9H13722 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:29:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-509.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.253]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 48C6C1D530C for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:22:26 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:20:38 -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 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ben Schelen writes: > West north east south > pass 1 D > 1 NT 1 NT > double pass > > When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitudes pass in > double. > East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > > Question one: Can he decide: it is to late and the auction continues? > Question two: Is Law 27B3 to be applied and the double and the pass are > cancelled? > Question three: Law 25B1 revers to Law 27 but the LHO has already bid. > Nevertheless will NS receive Av minus? What a pity that it takes two infractions followed by a pass before the TD is called! All the players need a gentle (or not so gentle!) reminder of their responsibilities. L35 allows some inadmissable calls to be condoned, but a double replacing an insufficient bid is not one of them. I would therefore rule that North's double and East's subsequent pass are cancelled (L27B3). East may accept 1NT (L27A). Otherwise 1NT is cancelled, North may substitute a pass or any legal bid (but not a double!), South must pass throughout and L23 or L26 may apply (L27B3). The answers to your questions IMO are (1) No - the double cannot be condoned (2) Yes (3) No - L25 does not apply. 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 Nov 26 08:48:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPLmBV13759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:48:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAPLm5H13755 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:48:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-94-169.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.94.169] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16871Z-00066O-00; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:41:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c175fa$0d3167e0$a95e063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:06:30 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas > > Because he thinks he's God. > +=+ For 'thinks' read 'knows'. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 08:48:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPLmK813765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:48:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAPLmCH13761 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:48:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-94-169.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.94.169] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16871j-00066O-00; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:41:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c175fa$12d35c80$a95e063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:30:45 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > >I haven't checked the Orange Book (or the White > > Book either for that matter), but a poster on BLML > > mentioned a regulation that makes logical sense but > > isn't an obvious outcome from the Laws. Apparently, > > if one side achieves a dismal result and then manages > > to foul the board, instead of the "obvious" -3 IMPs, > > they are to be given an IMP result based on an > > assigned score at the other table (which couldn't > > play the board because it was fouled). > > > >As you say, this doesn't seem to follow from L12C3, > >but I don't see just where it does come from. > >Maybe 72B1? > > I've always used 72B1 for this sort of thing. john > -- +=+ Would you not think the appropriate action does not require the assessment of a result at the table where the board is not played? It seems justifiable to award an arbitrary adjusted score in imps under Law 84E where an application of 72B1 is decided upon. ~ 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 Nov 26 09:07:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAPM6mk13788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:06:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAPM6gH13784 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:06:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from karel (r-airlock157.esatclear.ie [194.165.171.157]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA10347 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:59:52 GMT From: "Karel" To: Subject: [BLML] Ruling Please Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:59:14 -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: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Recent Pairs event Bidding goes as follows N E S W P P 1NT 2C(1) 4D(2) P(3) 5D P 5H P P P (1) Dont clubs + another suit (2) Meant as a transfer to 4 hearts (3) Asked the meaning of 4D's - told its natural to play Result 5H's - 1. Td called and rules UI by N/S - result changed to 5D's - 4. N/S appeal ruling. They claim that the logic of a passed hand bidding 4D's to play is ludicrous and that the follow up 5H's must be to play and clearly shows an pdship misunderstanding as once again how can a passed hand cue bid opposite a strong nt opener at the 5 level. They also claim that 5D's by a 1NT bidder to play over a (correctly alerted) 4D transfer to 4h's is also ridiculous. Possibly a maximum magic cue bid for hearts but never to play. Your decision pls ?? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 12:01:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQ10CR23429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:00:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQ105H23414 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:00:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.133.245] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 168A1S-0005SW-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:53:22 +0000 Message-ID: <006401c17614$acd135e0$f5857ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> <000601c17529$b1fad800$0f2d7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:52:49 -0000 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 Grattan wrote: > > Those were the facts on which the director > > had to rule. What should his process have > > been in arriving at his decision? Should you > > require any further information, I am happy > > to supply it. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > +=+ A possible start would be to hear the > other side's objections? ~ G ~ +=+ We thought of that. They said that North, who might have started with 0-5-3-5, might also have gone in with the jack of diamonds from Jxx. Moreover, they thought (correctly) that the Laws (70E) might prohibit declarer from taking a diamond finesse late in the day. There was some force to these arguments. The real point is that we all knew that Armstrong knew North's shape, and although he was expecting CKQ in the North hand, the appearance of CQ7 would not have fazed him very much. He would, beyond doubt, have made the contract had he been required to play on. But would it be "irrational" to go down, and what are the implications of L70E in a position like this? As anyone who knows John will not be surprised to hear, the most cogent arguments in favour of ruling for North-South came from West. More worrying, though, was this: on the following day, I was asked by various people (including Armstrong) whether we had considered a split, or weighted, score. Now, in the case of a contested claim, such a decision would be ridiculous - if one says that "some of the time he'd have made it, and some of the time he'd have gone down", one is saying that it would not be irrational to go down, in which case one simply disallows the claim. But one of the undesirable side effects of the ability to apply L12C3 is that people expect split scores in all cases, including those where they are manifestly not permitted. 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 Nov 26 13:06:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQ25fA26865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:05:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQ25aH26861 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:05:36 +1100 (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 UAA11674 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA06138 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:58:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:58:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111260158.UAA06138@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > Because he thinks he's God. Oh, I doubt it's anything so irrational. More likely Bill has made a business decision that Microsoft will earn bigger profits by violating industry standards than by following them. (Originally I wrote "ignoring industry standards," but it's really more a matter of "deliberately violating" than of "ignoring.") Bill is quite likely correct about where Microsoft's best interests lie. (And if I were to say otherwise, whom would you believe? It's not hard to guess which one of us has the superior business credentials? :-) ) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 17:33:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQ6X1906966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:33:01 +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 fAQ6WtH06962 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:32:55 +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 RAA07952 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:36:03 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:11:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] UI and L24 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:23:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/11/2001 05:17:25 PM 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 fAQ6WuH06963 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asked: >The spade ace is dropped during the auction, and a fairly boring ruling >then appeal follows based on whether partner's actions during the >bidding were based on the UI from seeing the SA. > >However, the AC did ask one pertinent question.  How do you prove that >the SA is UI? > >There is no doubt that it becomes UI if it remains as a penalty card >during the play [and does not matter during the play if it belongs to >declarer or dummy].  But how do you prove it is UI during the auction? L16C2 refers to UI after withdrawn actions of the offending side - but the spade ace has *not* been withdrawn. L73A1 refers to communication being only by calls and plays - but does not specifically require *legal* plays. L73C defines UI as remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation; L73F1 gives UI as remark, manner, tempo or the like - a face up card is *unlike* the other examples. And L24 is silent on UI during the auction. So my answer is that David has posed a trick question - you *cannot* prove that the SA is UI during the auction. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 20:11:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQ9B0007033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:11:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQ9ArH07029 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:10:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-7-125-164.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.7.125.164] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 168HeD-000JGn-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:01:54 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c17659$712b13e0$a47d073e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "David Burn" References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> <000601c17529$b1fad800$0f2d7bd5@dodona> <006401c17614$acd135e0$f5857ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:02:09 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? > Grattan wrote: > > > > +=+ A possible start would be to hear the > > other side's objections? ~ G ~ +=+ > > We thought of that. They said that North, who > might have started with 0-5-3-5, might also > have gone in with the jack of diamonds from Jxx. > Moreover, they thought (correctly) that the > Laws (70E) might prohibit declarer from taking > a diamond finesse late in the day. There was > some force to these arguments. > +=+ Nostalgia: ancient history records that in an exhibition match on viewgraph I once got a fine result against the Sharples by playing J from J x x in a NT contract, with A K 10 x on my left in dummy, Peter M. having Q x x. +=+ > > > As anyone who knows John will not be surprised > to hear, the most cogent arguments in favour of > ruling for North-South came from West. More > worrying, though, was this: on the following day, > I was asked by various people (including Armstrong) > whether we had considered a split, or weighted, > score. Now, in the case of a contested claim, such > a decision would be ridiculous - if one says that > "some of the time he'd have made it, and some of > the time he'd have gone down", one is saying that > it would not be irrational to go down, in which > case one simply disallows the claim. But one of > the undesirable side effects of the ability to apply > L12C3 is that people expect split scores in all > cases, including those where they are manifestly > not permitted. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I think the EBU L&E should note Appeal no. 41 from Tenerife and promulgate the principle to its Directors and Referees' Panel. Mind you, when Riccardi remains reluctant to accept the decision it is not totally surprising if mortal Englishmen raise the question. But unless the law is changed we should be resisting strongly misuse of 12C3; from my point of view to do less damages the WBF's policy to persuade NBOs of the desirability of its adoption (and of persuading Zones not to exercise the option to reject 12C3). To repeat what I have already said, the AC in Tenerife (having the powers of the 'national authority' for the tournament) decreed that the resolution of a claim does not involve award of an artificial adjusted score so that 12C3 cannot apply to such a case. (The phrase used in Law 69 is that the board "is rescored". Law 70 says the Director "adjudicates the result of the board'. Neither of these infers anything about score adjustment: the principle is properly one of assessing the correct table score on the board as it was played.) ~ 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 Nov 26 20:35:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQ9ZdG07051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:35:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAQ9ZYH07047 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:35:34 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E610@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:28:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike amos wrote: >This came up today - not sure the TD got it right > >Dealer South > >West North East South > Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs > >South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North >has passed out of turn >The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South >opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT > >To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was before a penalty has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. Therefore North's pass is cancelled without penalty and it is West's turn to call. However, the pass out of turn is UI 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 Mon Nov 26 21:29:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQASZf07081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:28:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hebe.uva.nl (hebe.uva.nl [145.18.40.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQASTH07077 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:28:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (dhcp-ivip-215.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.215]) by hebe.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA21281 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:21:44 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: hebe.uva.nl: Host dhcp-ivip-215.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.215] claimed to be jppals From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:20:59 +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: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E610@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was > before a penalty has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. > Therefore North's pass is cancelled without penalty and it is > West's turn to call. > However, the pass out of turn is UI to South. > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl L28 deals with 'a call out of rotation by an _opponent_' So try again... JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 21:37:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAbjk07094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:37:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQAbcH07090 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:37:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix.duesseldorf.de (selene [134.99.128.5]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with SMTP id <0GNE0085DL7HDC@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:30:53 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:30:53 +0000 From: bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de Subject: [BLML] claims and trumps To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0GNE0085EL7HDC@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan v2.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, How many tricks would you give in a claim such as this: - xx x - Q - xx xxx - - - - KJ10 - - - spades are trumps In other words: Is it irrational to play KJ10 not from the top in such a situation? What ist with: 863 in trumps and the 7 is in opps hands? Is there an official tendency? Cheers Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 21:41:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAfnm07110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:41:49 +1100 (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 fAQAfgH07106 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:41:43 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA27065; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:34:59 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Nov 26 11:32:22 2001 +0100 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 <01KB5POMO2PC0024BQ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:34:52 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:34:50 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:34:44 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] UI and L24 To: "'business center'" , BLML 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 I would use L 16 (A) to support that decision, which I would have taken myself too. ton The spade ace is dropped during the auction, and a fairly boring ruling then appeal follows based on whether partner's actions during the bidding were based on the UI from seeing the SA. However, the AC did ask one pertinent question. How do you prove that the SA is UI? There is no doubt that it becomes UI if it remains as a penalty card during the play [and does not matter during the play if it belongs to declarer or dummy]. But how do you prove it is UI during the auction? -- David Stevenson Currently in Las Vegas Copy emails to < bridge@blakjak.com > please Web: blakjak.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 Nov 26 21:42:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAgCw07122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:42:12 +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 fAQAg6H07118 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:42:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-104.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.104]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAQAZKT15995 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:35:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BFF6938.DED178AA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:32:40 +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] Trick 9 claim - rationality? References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > An appeal on which I had to rule recently: > > Game all, dealer North > > None > AJ932 > QJ92 > Q743 > AQJ106 74 > KQ 10854 > 73 AK1084 > A1052 J8 > K98532 > 76 > 65 > K96 > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1S > Pass 2C 2D 2S > Dble Pass 3D Pass > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > It's all right. The auction (particularly East's contribution) was wholly > ridiculous, but this ruling had nothing to do with the bidding. North led a > heart, won by the queen. West led D7, on which North played the jack which > held the trick. North led HA, HJ (South discarding C6 and West C2), then > another heart to East's 10 on which South threw S2 and West S6. Declarer > took a spade finesse, North throwing C3, then played ace and another spade > on which North threw C4 and H3 while South won with the king (dummy > discarded C8). This left: > > None > None > Q92 > Q7 > J None > None None > 7 AK108 > A102 J > 98 > None > 6 > K9 > > South, a deliberative sort, was contemplating his lead to the ninth trick > when West said: > > "I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of > spades, making the rest." > > Those were the facts on which the director had to rule. What should his > process have been in arriving at his decision? Should you require any > further information, I am happy to supply it. > Yes please, David. If East truely knows the position, then the claim is OK, but does he ? What is his conception of the diamond lay-out ? I suspect that your AC actions focused on this. It is not fair to have us guessing what you found out through painstaking questioning. Once that is done, the case is simple enough not to expect anyone to get it wrong. -- 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 Nov 26 21:48:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAmX107135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:48:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQAmRH07131 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:48:28 +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 LAA16181; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:38:33 +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 LAA13512; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:41:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126113957.0247aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:42:43 +0100 To: "mike amos" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling In-Reply-To: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:14 25/11/2001 +0000, mike amos wrote: >This came up today - not sure the TD got it right > >Dealer South > >West North East South > Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs > >South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North >has passed out of turn >The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South >opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT > >To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? AG : to East. He may accept the POOT, and then 3C becomes a BOOT. Else, South gets his right to bid and I suppose he must now bid 3C. Also mention possible lead penalties if South doesn't bid clubs. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 21:50:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAoaR07147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:50:36 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQAoUH07143 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:50:31 +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 LAA16834; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:40:37 +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 LAA15723; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:43:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126114304.0247bec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:44:47 +0100 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling In-Reply-To: <3jbG2jA44HA8Ew8a@asimere.com> References: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:14 25/11/2001 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Dealer South > > > >West North East South > > Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs > > > >South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North > >has passed out of turn > >The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South > >opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT > > > >To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? > > > >Mike > > >1) Allow West to accept 3 Clubs, North must pass once. AG : well, the fisrt infraction was the POOT, so we should treat this first, shouldn't we ? Or are TDs converted to the prnciple that 'interrupts are resolved in opposite order of apparition' ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 21:58:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAwB307162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:58:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAQAw5H07158 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:58:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:21 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E611@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] claims and trumps Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de wrote: >Hi, > >How many tricks would you give in a claim such as this: > > > > - > xx > x > - > >Q - >xx xxx >- - >- - > > KJ10 > - > - > - > > >spades are trumps > > >In other words: > >Is it irrational to play KJ10 not from the top in such a situation? > >What ist with: > >863 in trumps and the 7 is in opps hands? > > > >Is there an official tendency? Depends on what declarer states. If he claims all tricks, then natural play is from the top, so he gets everything. Also in the second case, which is really the same. If declarer states that he loses one trick, then it is equally natural to start with a low card, so he will indeed lose that trick. -- 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 Nov 26 21:58:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQAwm607175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:58:48 +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 (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQAwgH07170 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:58:42 +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 LAA15192; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:55 +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 LAA24413; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126114919.02483900@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:52:57 +0100 To: "Karel" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:59 25/11/2001 +0000, Karel wrote: >Recent Pairs event > >Bidding goes as follows > >N E S W >P P 1NT 2C(1) >4D(2) P(3) 5D P >5H P P P > >(1) Dont clubs + another suit >(2) Meant as a transfer to 4 hearts >(3) Asked the meaning of 4D's - told its natural to play > >Result 5H's - 1. Td called and rules UI by N/S - result changed to 5D's - >4. N/S appeal ruling. > >They claim that the logic of a passed hand bidding 4D's to play is ludicrous >and that the follow up 5H's must be to play and clearly shows an pdship >misunderstanding as once again how can a passed hand cue bid opposite a >strong nt opener at the 5 level. > >They also claim that 5D's by a 1NT bidder to play over a (correctly alerted) >4D transfer to 4h's is also ridiculous. Possibly a maximum magic cue bid >for hearts but never to play. AG : I seldom admit self-serving arguments, but here North has has a point : he is under no obligation to pass ; his only obligation is to treat 5D the way his system tells it is over the 4D Transfer, most probably showing a very elegant hand with H+D. So, if it is at all plausible for him to bid 6H, make the final contract 6H-2, possibly doubled, else make it 5H. I also allow the 5H bid to awaken partner, especially after a pass. 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 Nov 26 22:01:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQB1pt07192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:01:51 +1100 (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 fAQB1jH07188 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:01:46 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E612@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:55:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 02:14 25/11/2001 +0000, mike amos wrote: >>This came up today - not sure the TD got it right >> >>Dealer South >> >>West North East South >> Pass(OOT) 3 Clubs >> >>South - after all he is Dealer bids 3C - apparently not realising that North >>has passed out of turn >>The two calls are not simultaneous - there is some time delay but South >>opens in good faith 3C before anyone has drawn attention to North's POOT >> >>To whom does the TD speak and what does he say? > >AG : to East. He may accept the POOT, and then 3C becomes a BOOT. Else, >South gets his right to bid and I suppose he must now bid 3C. Also mention >possible lead penalties if South doesn't bid clubs. No, Alain. Read L28B. South took his rightful turn. -- 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 Nov 26 22:29:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQBTMA10616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQBTGH10600 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:29:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix.duesseldorf.de (selene [134.99.128.5]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with SMTP id <0GNE00CGONLDDN@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:22:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:22:25 +0000 From: bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] claims and trumps To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0GNE00CGPNLDDN@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan v2.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin wrote: > Depends on what declarer states. If he claims all tricks, then > natural play is from the top, so he gets everything. Also in the > second case, which is really the same. If declarer states that > he loses one trick, then it is equally natural to start with > a low card, so he will indeed lose that trick. I intended a case where he claimed all tricks. But interesting answer anyway ;-) Cheers Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 26 22:30:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQBU2p10764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:30:02 +1100 (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 fAQBTtH10736 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:29:56 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:23:12 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E613@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:23:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was >> before a penalty has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. >> Therefore North's pass is cancelled without penalty and it is >> West's turn to call. >> However, the pass out of turn is UI to South. >> >> -- >> Martin Sinot >> Nijmegen >> martin@spase.nl > > >L28 deals with 'a call out of rotation by an _opponent_' >So try again... Oops, you are absolutely right... guess I didn't have enough coffee today yet :) Please ignore my previous contributions -- 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 Nov 26 23:26:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQCPvD13558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:25:57 +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 fAQCPoH13554 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:25:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.22]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAQCJ5T03448 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:19:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C02213C.A839E45@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:02:20 +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] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> <001201c17557$2d2ccd80$86327bd5@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: > > > > +=+ Perhaps absurdity is not quite the word. There was > Appeal no.41 in Tenerife involving a claim. Two very senior > Directors had consulted and awarded a weighted score > under 12C3. The AC said that there was no 'assigned > adjusted score' to vary: the wording in 69B is that the > "board is rescored" and the AC (being the 'national > authority for the purposes of Law 93C' under the CoCs) > deemed rescoring the board not to be an award of an > assigned adjusted score, so that no 12C3 adjustment > was authorized. > If you look at the final item in the WBFLC minutes > in Paris, you will find a subject put back to the next > meeting. Antonio Riccardi wishes to pursue his different > view in this matter; that is to say, I am not sure whether > he wishes to challenge the Tenerife interpretation of the > law or whether he now simply wishes to change the law > to allow of a 12C3 decision in such a case. If the latter, > I would not be prepared to reject the thought out of > hand; it should be discussed - what works for other > rulings might also work for a contested claim or > withdrawn acquiescence. On the other hand it could > perhaps work to increase the number of challenges in > apparently straightforward situations. +=+ > > I second that thought. The current laws (as Grattan and I interpret them) do not allow for L12C3 to be used in cases of claims, but perhaps the next ones should. There are cases in which it is not equitable to award claimer (or revoker) the absolute worst of all lines under consideration. My personal opinion on the Tenerife Appeal 41 is however that even if the laws were to allow it, that case was not one in which I considered it equitable. Claimer made an obvious error there and should suffer from it, under these laws and the next. But I repeat, that is my personal opinion. -- 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 Nov 26 23:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQCPoi13553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:25:50 +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 fAQCPhH13548 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:25:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.22]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAQCIwT03391 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:18:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C021FED.B03009C2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:56:45 +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] Las Vegas References: <003501c17537$606d2020$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> <000301c175fa$0d3167e0$a95e063e@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: > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "They are as sick that surfeit with too much, > as they that starve with nothing." - The M of V. > > > + + + + + + + + + + + > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 5:34 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas > > > > > Because he thinks he's God. > > > +=+ For 'thinks' read 'knows'. +=+ > Isn't the joke that after Bush and Putin get to heaven and are awarded seats next to God, Bill Gates makes it and says to the Guy in the middle "aren't you sitting in my seat ?". -- 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 Nov 27 00:35:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQDYru13599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:34:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQDYjH13595 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:34:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id 7.e5.f953c30 (3958); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:27:54 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:27:54 EST Subject: [BLML] Travel To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Schoders@aol.com, joseph.silva@221bsb.wiesbaden.army.mil CC: barbara144@cds1.net, gester@lineone.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e5.f953c30.29339d5a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_e5.f953c30.29339d5a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I'm leaving this afternoon for Wiesbaden, Germany until the 3rd of December. ACBL Regional tournament of long standing for its overseas members and any and all guests that wish to play. Best regards, Kojak --part1_e5.f953c30.29339d5a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,

I'm leaving this afternoon for Wiesbaden, Germany until the 3rd of December. ACBL Regional tournament of long standing for its overseas members and any and all guests that wish to play.

Best regards,   Kojak
 --part1_e5.f953c30.29339d5a_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 Nov 27 00:46:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQDkFS13616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:46:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQDk9H13612 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:46:10 +1100 (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 IAA22172 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA10422 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:39:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:39:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111261339.IAA10422@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] UI and L24 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > I would use L 16 (A) to support that decision, which I would have taken > myself too. This is very interesting! I've always assumed a card face up on the table was AI. Certainly it was before 1997, when L50D1 was changed. (Also 16C2 changed, which might indicate the intent of the LC even though it isn't directly relevant.) I don't think you can use 16A, which after all didn't change in 1997. Does 50D1 apply during the auction period as well as the play? Nothing in its text limits it to the play period. If it isn't 50D1, I think the card has to be AI. Grattan: any space left in your notebook? An interpretation of the current laws might be useful, but more important, please clear this up in the next edition. In my opinion, the real problem is mixing mechanical and equity penalties. Either one would be OK, but the combination is very hard to follow. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 00:54:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQDroE13631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:53:50 +1100 (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 fAQDrjH13627 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:53:45 +1100 (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 IAA22423 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA10442 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111261347.IAA10442@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claims and trumps X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de > - > xx > x > - > > Q - > xx xxx > - - > - - > > KJ10 > - > - > - > Is it irrational to play KJ10 not from the top in such a situation? General guidance here (ACBL) is that unstated suits are played from the top, i.e. playing a low card from declarer's hand would be irrational. If the lead is in dummy, it would be merely careless to play a diamond and trump low. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 01:14:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQEEd913658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:14:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQEEXH13654 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:14:34 +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 PAA06163; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:04:40 +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 PAA18935; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:07:48 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126150710.0247f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:08:50 +0100 To: Martin Sinot , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E610@obelix.spase.nl.200 .168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:28 26/11/2001 +0100, Martin Sinot wrote: >L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was before a penalty >has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. Therefore North's >pass is cancelled without penalty and it is West's turn to call. >However, the pass out of turn is UI to South. AG : this means that South could lessen the severity of the penalty by calling. I don't like this at all. Perhaps the intention was to mention calls by the NOS. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 01:20:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQEKOo13670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:20:24 +1100 (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 fAQEKIH13666 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:20:18 +1100 (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 fAQEDUo16825; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:31 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAQEDT603130; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:29 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:29 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 OAA01852; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:29 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA09483; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:28 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:28 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111261413.OAA09483@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [BLML] UI and L24 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > This is very interesting! I've always assumed a card face up on the > table was AI. Certainly it was before 1997, when L50D1 was changed. I agree. > (Also 16C2 changed, which might indicate the intent of the LC even > though it isn't directly relevant.) > > I don't think you can use 16A, which after all didn't change in 1997. > Does 50D1 apply during the auction period as well as the play? Nothing > in its text limits it to the play period. If it isn't 50D1, I think > the card has to be AI. Law 50 talks about a card prematurely exposed by a defender. This does limit it (law 50) to the play period. During the auction, no player is a defender, so they can not be subject to L50. > Grattan: any space left in your notebook? An interpretation of the > current laws might be useful, but more important, please clear this up > in the next edition. In my opinion, the real problem is mixing > mechanical and equity penalties. Either one would be OK, but the > combination is very hard to follow. Indeed. 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 Nov 27 01:23:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQENhm13682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:23:43 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQENbH13678 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:23:38 +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 PAA08257; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:13:44 +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 PAA28778; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:16:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126151004.0247cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:17:53 +0100 To: bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] claims and trumps In-Reply-To: <0GNE0085EL7HDC@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:30 26/11/2001 +0000, bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de wrote: >How many tricks would you give in a claim such as this: > - > xx > x > - > >Q - >xx xxx >- - >- - > > KJ10 > - > - > - > >Is it irrational to play KJ10 not from the top in such a situation? AG : yes, it is. At least if you must play them from the closed hand. >What ist with: > >863 in trumps and the 7 is in opps hands? > >Is there an official tendency? AG : what most of us admit is that : - suits that were believed (according to the statement) are played from the top ; - ruffs are made with the smallest available trump ; - if an unexpected card comes on the table, it will be covered as economically as possible. In both cases, I would then admit the claim. 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 Nov 27 01:24:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQEOY313694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:24:34 +1100 (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 fAQEORH13690 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:24:28 +1100 (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 fAQEHfo17499; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:43 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAQEHcT03512; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:38 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:38 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 OAA01856; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:38 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA09489; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:37 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:17:37 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200111261417.OAA09489@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] claims and trumps X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > - > > xx > > x > > - > > > > Q - > > xx xxx > > - - > > - - > > > > KJ10 > > - > > - > > - > > Is it irrational to play KJ10 not from the top in such a situation? > > General guidance here (ACBL) is that unstated suits are played from the > top, i.e. playing a low card from declarer's hand would be irrational. > > If the lead is in dummy, it would be merely careless to play a diamond > and trump low. Steve: you could end that sentence after "diamond". Once a diamond is lead, West gets a trick. Of course, if SQJ were swapped, we may still give West a trick if the lead were in dummy. [ Don't you just hate it when replies keep changing the problem on BLML: "If the lead is in dummy", "if SQJ were swapped". ] -- 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 Nov 27 01:30:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQEUK813708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:30:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQEUEH13704 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:30:14 +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 PAA24834; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:23:24 +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 PAA06305; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:23:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126152111.0246d3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:24:27 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'business center'" , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] UI and L24 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 11:34 26/11/2001 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >I would use L 16 (A) to support that decision, which I would have taken >myself too. AG : the wording of L73A1 'only by means' and 16A 'or the equivalent' hints that the lists in 16A and 73C aren't exhaustive. I had some opportunities to apply those laws to 'other' causes of UI, eg the manner in which the board was passed under the screen. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 01:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQEvp713725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:57:51 +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 fAQEvdH13721 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:57:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAQEokc28986 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:50:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? 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: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> David Burn wrote: > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > An appeal on which I had to rule recently: > > Game all, dealer North > > None > AJ932 > QJ92 > Q743 > AQJ106 74 > KQ 10854 > 73 AK1084 > A1052 J8 > K98532 > 76 > 65 > K96 > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1S > Pass 2C 2D 2S > Dble Pass 3D Pass > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > It's all right. The auction (particularly East's contribution) was > wholly ridiculous, but this ruling had nothing to do with the bidding. > North led a heart, won by the queen. West led D7, on which North played > the jack which > held the trick. North led HA, HJ (South discarding C6 and West C2), then > another heart to East's 10 on which South threw S2 and West S6. Declarer > took a spade finesse, North throwing C3, then played ace and another > spade on which North threw C4 and H3 while South won with the king > (dummy discarded C8). This left: > > None > None > Q92 > Q7 > J None > None None > 7 AK108 > A102 J > 98 > None > 6 > K9 > > South, a deliberative sort, was contemplating his lead to the ninth > trick when West said: > > "I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of > spades, making the rest." > > Those were the facts on which the director had to rule. What should his > process have been in arriving at his decision? Should you require any > further information, I am happy to supply it. OK so West claimed on the basis that the SJ would squeeze North (whose shape he knows) out his other club honour or the third diamond. If the hand were to be played out West would notice the fatal flaw in his plan when the C7 appeared. West would correctly identify that the diamond finesse is 3:1 or more in his favour and I consider it would be irrational for West to ignore these odds and play for the drop. Contract made - WTP. Had South had the singleton queen I think West would have conceded the last three tricks (I would have awarded them to defence if he didn't). If my wife had claimed in the same position, with the same words, I'd give 1 trick to the defence *unless* DQ was singleton in South when I would give all tricks to declarer (My wife may bid better than East but the chance of her claiming on a squeeze is zero). 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 Nov 27 02:09:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQF96H13743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.businetcomm.com ([209.5.151.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQF91H13739 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:09:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from webmail (unverified [209.5.151.18]) by mail1.businetcomm.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 06:55:07 -0800 Message-ID: <341069380.1006786668984.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 06:57:48 -0800 (PST) From: mikopera Reply-To: mikopera@nyc.rr.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: E-mailanywhere V2.0 (Windows) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the on-line lawbook (1997), 28B says "cancels a call out of rotation by an opponent." >On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:08:50 0100 Alain Gottcheiner wrote. >At 10:28 26/11/2001 0100, Martin Sinot wrote: > >>L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was before a penalty >>has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. Therefore North's >>pass is cancelled without penalty and it is West's turn to call. >>However, the pass out of turn is UI to South. > >AG : this means that South could lessen the severity of the penalty by >calling. I don't like this at all. Perhaps the intention was to mention >calls by the NOS. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 27 02:19:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQFJ4v13760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:19:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAQFIwH13756 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:18:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-49-248.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.49.248] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 168NQa-0004vV-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:12:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c1768c$8c9bbc00$f8317bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" , "David Burn" References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> <000601c17529$b1fad800$0f2d7bd5@dodona> <006401c17614$acd135e0$f5857ad5@pbncomputer> <001001c17659$712b13e0$a47d073e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:10:15 -0000 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 Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" ; "David Burn" Sent: 26 November 2001 09:02 Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > To repeat what I have already said, the AC > in Tenerife (having the powers of the 'national > authority' for the tournament) decreed that > the resolution of a claim does not involve award > of an artificial adjusted score so that 12C3 > cannot apply to such a case. > +=+ CORRECTION: "assigned 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 Tue Nov 27 03:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQGqeE13838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:52:40 +1100 (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.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQGqYH13834 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:52:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-152.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.152] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 168OtA-000DiN-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:45:50 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c17699$9fb074e0$f8317bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> <001201c17557$2d2ccd80$86327bd5@dodona> <3C02213C.A839E45@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:43:17 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 26 November 2001 11:02 Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > The current laws (as Grattan and I interpret > them) do not allow for L12C3 to be used in > cases of claims, > +=+ I had consulted ton for his view also. ~ 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 Nov 27 06:48:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQJlJV18941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:47:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fAQJlDH18918 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:47:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fAQJcL624628; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:38:22 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126150710.0247f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126150710.0247f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:37:17 -0500 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Cc: Martin Sinot , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:08 PM +0100 11/26/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:28 26/11/2001 +0100, Martin Sinot wrote: > >>L28B - a call made by a player whose turn it was before a penalty >>has been assessed cancels a call out of rotation. Therefore North's >>pass is cancelled without penalty and it is West's turn to call. >>However, the pass out of turn is UI to South. > >AG : this means that South could lessen the severity of the penalty >by calling. I don't like this at all. Perhaps the intention was to >mention calls by the NOS. Law 28B refers specifically to calls out of rotation *by an opponent*. In spite of the often understandable tendency to refer to partner as "center hand opponent", technically he isn't one. :-) 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAKaMr2UW3au93vOEQJ5ZQCgq/efxgOZ6Py6q7U75d3PI/s8Lc0AoOU1 I/nVHht5aDC1JmSnkmBwIMFQ =X9Mr -----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 Nov 27 07:20:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQKKIC21677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:20:18 +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 fAQKKCH21673 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:20:12 +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 fAQKDAk10823; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:13:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011126140953.00a12420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:14:11 -0600 To: "Karel" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c17556$e828a6a0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:59 PM 11/25/01 +0000, Karel wrote: >Recent Pairs event > >Bidding goes as follows > >N E S W >P P 1NT 2C(1) >4D(2) P(3) 5D P >5H P P P > >(1) Dont clubs + another suit >(2) Meant as a transfer to 4 hearts >(3) Asked the meaning of 4D's - told its natural to play > >Result 5H's - 1. Td called and rules UI by N/S - result changed to 5D's - >4. N/S appeal ruling. > >They claim that the logic of a passed hand bidding 4D's to play is ludicrous >and that the follow up 5H's must be to play and clearly shows an pdship >misunderstanding as once again how can a passed hand cue bid opposite a >strong nt opener at the 5 level. I agree completely. At some point one must accept that 'partner misunderstood my bid' is so vastly more likely than 'partner has invented some incredibly weird bidding pattern' that to bid under the second assumption becomes not an LA. >They also claim that 5D's by a 1NT bidder to play over a (correctly alerted) >4D transfer to 4h's is also ridiculous. Possibly a maximum magic cue bid >for hearts but never to play. Here, again, I agree, with the caveat [already mentioned before] that this means that if the 4D bidder would have a slam hand opposite a maximum magic cue bid, he should go to slam. I find it just within the realm of possibility that the 1N opener could have such a hand. >Your decision pls ?? Almost certainly to restore the table result, subject to the caveat above. 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 Nov 27 09:08:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQM6xj21719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:06:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from jet.kar.net (root@jet.kar.net [195.178.131.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQM6pH21715 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:06:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from svk (33.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.33]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fAQLxxm53373 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <00c101c176c5$e9ac42a0$2182b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126150710.0247f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:59:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: >In spite of the often understandable tendency to refer to >partner as "center hand opponent", technically he isn't one. :-) Thank you, Ed. It is a new joke for me and now I know who I am for my partner :)) It is a good news that she is not going to be a BLML member :)) Sergey -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 09:35:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAQMYjQ21737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:34:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAQMYfH21733 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:34:41 +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 JAA09095 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:37:49 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:13:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Red Queen's Race To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:24:58 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/11/2001 09:19:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Imps Dlr E 3 Vul NS 7 AJ862 A109862 Me K J1065 AQ10982 653 K104 973 KJ7 Q54 M.L.L.A.I.* AQ98742 KQJ4 5 3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1S 2H 3C Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S All pass The play was truncated: Ace of hearts; King of spades switch to the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. After that trick, declarer laid his hand on the table, noting that the only remaining tricks he would lose were to my J10 of trumps. Declarer is one of the two best players in Canberra, and for him most losing lines are irrational*. Even so, I decided to summon the TD, since I had noticed that the pip on declarer's Queen of hearts was a little bit too pointy. The TD unimaginatively ruled that 4S was now two off, giving us the additional tricks of the King of diamonds and the Queen of hearts. However, as TD, I would have ruled differently. Firstly, I would rule that it would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. to mis-sort his cards. The fact that he had actually mis-sorted his cards I would rule irrelevant. This follows the Maastricht precedent where it was ruled irrelevant to the claim on a double squeeze, the inconvenient fact that declarer had actually mistimed his double squeeze. Secondly, I would rule that it would be irrational for declarer to fail in 4S by not taking the diamond finesse, ruffing out the diamonds, crossing to the Ace of clubs, and discarding the losing Jack of hearts on a good diamond. The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not stated this only logical line of play in his claim was irrelevant, since given his class of player, he is never required to make a complete and comprehensive claim statement. 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 Nov 27 11:05:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAR04aF25596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:04:36 +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 fAR04WH25592 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:04:32 +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 LAA15228 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:07:40 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:43:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:54:08 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/11/2001 10:49:01 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: [snip] >At some point one must accept >that 'partner misunderstood my >bid' is so vastly more likely >than 'partner has invented some >incredibly weird bidding pattern' >that to bid under the second >assumption becomes not an LA. [snip] As an AC, I would take a harder line. When UI has told one that 'partner misunderstood my bid', I would not define that as the only LA, unless that is also the only *demonstrable* possibility for partner's bidding - 'incredibly weird' is not good enough, as it is demonstrably possible that partner's hand may be incredibly weird. Even more likely is that partner's brain is incredibly weird. :-) 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 Nov 27 11:47:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAR0lPP25619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:47:25 +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 fAR0lJH25615 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:47:19 +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 fAR0eQI15097; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:40:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAR0eQx13286; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:40:26 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:40:26 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: business center cc: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-Reply-To: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, business center wrote: > > Great fun here: met all sorts of people. > > Not only have I met Marvin French, but more important: I have met > Alice!!!!! So where can I find you? > I cannot wait for Marv to show you all Appeals Case 3 in the > bulletin. Trust me, that is **NOT** what we decided!!!!!! 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 Nov 27 18:14:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAR7DSY13834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:13:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12403.mail.yahoo.com (web12403.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAR7DMH13830 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:13:22 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <20011127070637.2069.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.237.73.254] by web12403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:06:37 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:06:37 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Zietman?= Subject: [BLML] Re: centre hand opponent To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <00c101c176c5$e9ac42a0$2182b2c3@svk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A friend of mine when asked whether he preferred pairs or teams replied : "I prefer pairs because then it it one against three and I have a chance, in teams it is one against seven and then I have no chance!" Brian Zietman Jerusalem --- Sergey Kapustin wrote: > Ed wrote: > > >In spite of the often understandable tendency to > refer to > > >partner as "center hand opponent", technically he > isn't one. :-) > > > Thank you, Ed. > It is a new joke for me and now I know who I am for > my partner :)) > It is a good news that she is not going to be a BLML > member :)) > > > Sergey > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the > BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 27 23:02:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARC25w12764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:02:05 +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 (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARC1uH12760 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:01:59 +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 MAA12360; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:55:06 +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 MAA16310; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:55:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127124926.024715a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:56:11 +0100 To: "Sergey Kapustin" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple Book Ruling In-Reply-To: <00c101c176c5$e9ac42a0$2182b2c3@svk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126150710.0247f8e0@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 23:59 26/11/2001 +0200, Sergey Kapustin wrote: >Ed wrote: > > >In spite of the often understandable tendency to refer to > > >partner as "center hand opponent", technically he isn't one. :-) > > >Thank you, Ed. >It is a new joke for me and now I know who I am for my partner :)) >It is a good news that she is not going to be a BLML member :)) AG : a current French expression is "l'adversaire d'en face", i.e. the opposite opponent. As a friend player once said, "how could we win this match, LHO and me against the other six ?" Technically, any member of the opposite team is an opponent, even if rested for the present set of boards. Suppose that the opposite captain, who was there kibitzing, replaces for a short time the dummy, gone on other duties. Do you call him an opponent ? If you do, the CHO doers indeed exist %-P 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 Nov 28 00:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARD3BE12797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:03:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARD35H12793 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:03:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA31322; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:56:19 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Nov 27 13:49:59 2001 +0100 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 <01KB7780RTNU002600@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:07:40 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:07:38 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:07:35 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Something missing in footnote to L69-71 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 > While thinking about claims in general, I came accross > something which might well be understood by most, but > perhaps not clearly set out in the Laws. > > I would like to illustrate with an example, which I have > constructed. > I hope that I have covered all bases in constructing it. > > dummy: AQxx > AKxxxx > xx > A > decl: KJxxx > xx > Axx > xxx > Playing four spades, declarer receives the lead of diamonds > (thank you). He draws trumps in 3 rounds and cashes AK of > hearts. When both follow, he claims for 13 tricks, without > a further statement. > The TD rules that it is inconceivable that this declarer > (capabilities known) would not know there is one more heart > out and would not play heart ruff, club to the table, 2 > diamonds and a club gone on the free hearts, one diamond and > one club ruff. > In fact the TD rules all other lines "irrational for the > class of player involved" > > Now put the same cards in the hand of another declarer of > the same class. > > Play goes as before, but this declarer accompanies his claim > with the statement "I'll ruff two more hearts if needed". > > When confronted with this strange fact, it turns out that > declarer has seen 5 hearts and 3 diamonds on the table. > Since he now has only 7 hearts, he needs them 4-2 in order > to be able to throw one diamond on the fifth. This declarer > has issued a (correct in his mind) claim for 10 tricks if > hearts are 4-2 and 11 if they are 3-3. How many tricks do > we award ? > > Well, even if we assume that the claimer is of great > ability, in this case we must rule that he shall ruff a > heart, (noticing that they are 4-2, let's say that RHO has > the doubleton), play to the ace of clubs, ruff a second > heart (noticing that they are in fact 3-2), ruff a club, > throw two diamonds on the fifth and the (now rediscovererd) > sixth hearts, and concede a final diamond. > We award 12 tricks, even if declarer only claimed 10 or 11, > but we do not award 13 tricks. In fact, we rule that the > second heart ruff is a "normal" play, while for another > claimer of the same class we have ruled it to be an > irrational one. > > Where do we find in the Laws that the notion of normal or > irrational is not only dependent on the class of player > involved, but also of his (mis-)perception of the lie of the > cards ? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium We don't need that distinction. Irrational is something we don't expect to happen. But it still might happen. And if it does, for example because a player does announce it as his choice of play, we deal with it. Good example is the revoke, which we consider to be an irrational play looking at the future, it won't happen when deciding about future tricks in a claim, but which we accept when it happens or is announced to take place in the next trick. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 00:20:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARDK9C12814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:20:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lyra (lyra.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARDK4H12810 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:20:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.40.47]) by lyra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GNG002BLN7DEL@lyra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:09:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:47:13 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] A new kind of MI To: Gordon Bower , BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000001c17745$56608760$2f2828c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3C00113B.715FD223@mosquitonet.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Gordon, My feeling is if the players accepted the bot as a subsitute OR the bot is part of regulations for no-shows, tough luck ! If GIB is explaining its bids improperly, I would think that Ginsberg is the man to ask. I would judge the hand to be a nice 11 count, but the explanation makes no mention of tendencies. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ From: "Gordon Bower" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: [BLML] A new kind of MI | | I have recently begun work as a TD for SWAN Games, running online | tournaments a few times a week. This, as you may imagine, is a very | different type of directing: there are no revokes or actions out of | rotation, which are the bread and butter of face-to-face rulings; | instead, there is software you have to prod into moving the players, and | prople disconnect for random lengths of time constantly, so finding a | fill-in is not a "first 10 minutes of the session only" problem. | | I have run into several situations where I am unsure how to apply the | existing laws to online bridge -- this is a fact of life until the | "online laws" get put into final form and released which sounds like it | is a couple years away yet. Expect several more questions on this list | from me about that soon. :) | | Anyway -- last night, in my fourth session, I was finally asked to give | a bridge ruling. | | North deals, EW are vulnerable. | | West has been disconnected and hasn't returned for a few minutes, but is | expected to come back as soon as he can. In this situation our usual | practice is to use a copy of GIB as a substitute. | | West North East South | (GIB) | -- 1S Pass 1NT | 2D Pass 2NT Pass | 3H Pass 3NT Pass | Pass Pass | | GIB announces the meanings of all its calls. 2D was announced as "13+ | HCP, 5+ diamonds." 3H was announced as as "13+ HCP, 5+ diamonds, 4+ | hearts." Dummy hits with xx K7xx AQ9xxx x, and all three humans at the | table howl bellow for a director at once. | | East, who has 12 HCP and KQxx spades, tells me he would never have bid | 3NT if GIB hadn't very clearly promised possession of 13+ HCP. | North-South are on track for a somewhat nonsensical top, but they are | both clear that they'd much rather play a normal contract with a | meaningful play period, than allow a stupid bot to force a top on them | and skew the scores for the rest of the field to boot. | | First decision to make: has GIB psyched (twice) but correctly explained | his agreement? Or has GIB given misinformation? [If you rule GIB has | psyched, of course, tough cheese. Everyone is stuck with playing out the | hand and accepting the table result.] | | To East, you can say tough cheese anyway, if you want to, at least. We | aren't entitled to redress when our partners do silly things. Should it | affect your ruling if partner is a temporary substitute? Should it | matter if partner is human or not? | | North-South, however, have made it clear they want an adjustment. I can | imagine other situations following bizarre misbids with 4 humans where | actively ethical NOS might refuse a freak result and ask to be given the | most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred. | | NS have 8 tricks in spades, EW have 9 tricks in diamonds. Noone in his | right mind would play notrump either direction. Plausible results | include 3DW making, 3SN down one, and 2SN making. (All those results | appeared among the other tables who played this board after the same | 1S-P-1NT-2D start. Two tables managed to reach 4Sx down two, which is | just plain silly, and a reminder why we don't use the recap sheet as our | sole basis in deciding what is likely or at all possible...) | | I am hoping that somewhere out there, there is someone who agrees that I | was right to adjust the score to 2SN+2, 110 to NS, -110 to EW. | | It occurs to me someone might argue for NS 110 since they asked for it, | but force EW to keep their -300. Or even, to argue that the matchpoints | for the other EWs should be based on -110 at this table, but this | particular EW should be forced to keep their bottom. (I personally don't | care for either of these ideas. I still wouldn't care for either of them | if Swan's scoring software could handle either of them.) | | GRB | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 05:37:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARIaMA20497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:36:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fARIaBH20493 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:36:12 +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 fARITNk13166 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:29:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011127123014.00a1c040@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:30:25 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] The Red Queen's Race Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:24 AM 11/27/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Firstly, I would rule that it >would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. >to mis-sort his cards. The fact >that he had actually mis-sorted >his cards I would rule irrelevant. >This follows the Maastricht >precedent where it was ruled >irrelevant to the claim on a >double squeeze, the inconvenient >fact that declarer had actually >mistimed his double squeeze. Another perfect example of the mechanists versus the equitablists. If you are one breed of mechanist, you might indeed rule as you say you would have. [The Burnian mechanist, of course, would have made the hand off several.] OTOH, an equitablist like myself will argue that since declarer _did_ in fact mis-sort, and claimed on the basis of the mis-sort, we take that into account when ruling on the hand. I would not stick declarer with a revoke on this hand, but I can certainly see him going off two, as ruled. >Secondly, I would rule that it >would be irrational for declarer >to fail in 4S by not taking the >diamond finesse, ruffing out the >diamonds, crossing to the Ace of >clubs, and discarding the losing >Jack of hearts on a good diamond. >The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not >stated this only logical line of >play in his claim was irrelevant, >since given his class of player, >he is never required to make a >complete and comprehensive claim >statement. Trolling? If MLLAI is a truly good player, and has not mis-sorted his hand, then I might agree with this ruling. In the actual circumstances I would probably rule down two, although I haven't followed out all the possible mistaken lines he could play. >Best wishes > >Richard 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 Nov 28 08:21:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARLKlh24834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:20:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fARLKaH24830 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:20:37 +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 fARLDbk04979 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:13:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011127151427.00a0be30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:14:39 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:54 AM 11/27/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >[snip] > > >At some point one must accept > >that 'partner misunderstood my > >bid' is so vastly more likely > >than 'partner has invented some > >incredibly weird bidding pattern' > >that to bid under the second > >assumption becomes not an LA. > >[snip] > >As an AC, I would take a harder >line. When UI has told one that >'partner misunderstood my bid', I >would not define that as the only >LA, unless that is also the only >*demonstrable* possibility for >partner's bidding - 'incredibly >weird' is not good enough, as >it is demonstrably possible that >partner's hand may be incredibly >weird. But this doesn't fit the definition of an LA used by any authority that I know. In no UI situation that I could think of do we rule that a losing action is a LA unless you can demonstrate that it was impossible for it to be correct. >Even more likely is that partner's >brain is incredibly weird. :-) But vastly more likely than that is the possibility, in a case like this one, that we have had a misunderstanding. Put it another way. Suppose this had happened behind screens, and you ask 100 of this pairs' peers whether they would bid on under the assumption that partner has perpetrated a bizarre psyche/has gone insane, or whether they would assume a misunderstand and bid accordingly. Among _my_ peers, I'd bet at least 99 of them would assume a misunderstanding. {Well, maybe not with me, personally, since I am known for manufacturing odd bids. :)} >Best wishes > >Richard 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 Nov 28 09:34:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fARMXnh24880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:33:50 +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 fARMXiH24876 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:33:45 +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 JAA06516 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:36:52 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:12:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:13:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/11/2001 09:18:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: [snip] >Put it another way. Suppose this had >happened behind screens, and you ask 100 of >this pairs' peers whether they would bid on >under the assumption that partner has perpetrated >a bizarre psyche/has gone insane, or whether >they would assume a misunderstand and bid >accordingly. Among _my_ peers, I'd bet at >least 99 of them would assume a misunderstanding. >{Well, maybe not with me, personally, since I >am known for manufacturing odd bids. :)} Some years ago, the Bridge World posed just such a question to sixty-odd members of its full MSC panel (as part of a survey on AC decisions at an ACBL Nationals). The auction was: West East 1NT 4H (Texas transfer to spades) 4S 5H 5S 6H ? A majority of the MSC panel passed. But a significant minority (significant enough to demonstrate a LA) chose to call 6S or higher. Meanwhile, the actual AC were soulmates of Grant, and ruled that Pass was the only LA, nullifying the UI that the actual East had provided during the auction. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 13:23:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS2MM026387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:22:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAS2MHH26383 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:22:17 +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 NAA08422 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:25:24 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:01:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:12:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/11/2001 01:06:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: [snip] >>What is happening under L12C3 is this: something >>happens; a director is called, he goes away and then >>comes back to the table, where he says in effect: >>"abracadabra mumbo jumbo alakazam you get 58% >>and you get 42%". This seems about right to the >>players, so they don't appeal (especially since, if >>they were playing in Paris, the Daily Bulletin told >>them on more than one occasion not to bother >>appealing because it wasn't worth it). But scores are >>being split where they should not be split, and players >>have expectations that are quite unjustified as to >>what a director or an AC might do in order to "restore >>equity". [snip] Jeff Rubens is a strong supporter of increased equity in the Laws, but even he wrote (March 2000 Bridge World): [snip] >Directors and committees must first enforce the >Laws, only secondarily use judgement to increase >fairness of outcomes within those constraints. >Judges sometimes appear to have turned this >ordering upside-down: Determine the desired result, >then twist the Laws into an interpretation that >produces it. [snip] This case study, from another Australian Nationals, I found disturbing: 1. An inexperienced pair committed a major error of procedure against an experienced pair. This error also transmitted UI. (The TD was summoned.) 2. The inexperienced pair then bid and made a normal game. 3. The TD, in consultation with the CTD, correctly ruled that the UI was inconsequential and that the result would stand. 4. The experienced pair appealed, arguing that due to the UI the inexperienced pair should have played in an abnormal partscore, failing. 5. The AC ruled that the UI for the inexperienced pair was consequential, and that they should get the score equivalent to the abnormal partscore, failing. 6. The AC also ruled that experienced pair would retain their table score of -650. 7. The TD informed the AC that their split of the score was illegal (since if playing in the abnormal partscore was an LA for the inexperienced pair after UI, the experienced pair could not be given a result derived from a different LA). The TD asked the AC to reconvene. 8. The AC now ruled that the UI for the inexperienced pairs had suddenly become inconsequential again, with the table result restored for both sides. 9. Just to make everyone unhappy, the AC fined the inexperienced pair 3 VPs, even though the TD and the CTD had not thought a PP appropriate. On the facts as given above, it seems that this particular AC shared one of the popular views of an aspect of equity - *don't give windfalls to experienced players* - with that as the only constant in their two legally and logically different decisions. 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 Nov 28 13:34:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS2Y1J26928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:34:01 +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 fAS2XtH26910 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:33:56 +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 fAS2R9w28966 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:27:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00de01c177b3$d0da3fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001501c1729e$cff936e0$c13467c0@isi.com> Subject: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:17:50 -0800 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" > > Its also worth noting that there are almost no Midchart level events > here at the ACBL Nationals. Other than the top flight of the > bracketed KOs, there are no Midchart level events until the Blue > Ribbon Pairs tomorrow and the Reisinger BAMs on Sunday. Hi Richard, it was great meeting you in Las Vegas. I believe the LM Pairs was Mid-Chart, am I wrong? The Blue Ribbon Pairs allowed Mid-Chart, plus at least one illegal convention: A 2D opening showing a weak two in hearts or various strong adjuncts. Two brothers playing this convention in the Blue Ribbon patiently, laughingly, condescendingly, explained to me that I was completely wrong concerning its legality, as they had used the convention for five years in regionals with nary a problem (a real *non sequitur*). The Mid-Chart allows such a Multi-ish bid for an unspecified major, but not for a specified major. This is stupid, of course, but that's what it says. For years I have been trying to get Ira's TWO-WAY TWO BIDS onto the Mid-Chart, if not the GCC, with no success. This convention uses 2D to show a weak two in hearts (or strong adjuncts) and 2H to show a strong two in hearts or a weak two in spades. It's easier to defend against than Multi with its unspecified major, but because no one influential plays it I can't get it approved. When the BoD changed the description of the allowed convention from a "weak two in either major" to the clearer "a weak two in an unspecified major," I thought perhaps they were confused, that it should have been "specified or unspecified major," as I had recommended. No, I was told, it means what it says, and you can't use TWO-WAY TWO BIDS. So how was the 2D = weak two in hearts permitted in the Blue Ribbon? By decree of Henry Cukoff, the DIC, who has assumed the prerogative of modifying the Mid-Chart as he sees fit. The reason he gave was quite logical (it's easier to defend than Multi), but he lacks the authority to make such decisions, which can be made only by the ACBL Board of Directors. Bart Bramley, chairman of the Competitions & Conventions committee, went along with Henry's decision (getting along seems to be important in such positions), saying 2-way twos are a subset of Multi, hence should be permitted. Okay, Bart, then get the language changed to agree with your opinion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 15:13:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS4DMP05686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:13:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAS4DGH05668 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:13:16 +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 PAA22340 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:16:25 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:52:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:03:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/11/2001 02:57:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A previous thread has demonstrated that the ACBL alert regulations are so arcane that even officials do not know all the subtleties. Now Marv writes: [snip] >So how was the 2D = weak two in hearts permitted in >the Blue Ribbon? By decree of Henry Cukoff, the DIC, >who has assumed the prerogative of modifying the Mid- >Chart as he sees fit. The reason he gave was quite >logical (it's easier to defend than Multi), but he lacks >the authority to make such decisions, which can be made >only by the ACBL Board of Directors. > >Bart Bramley, chairman of the Competitions & Conventions >committee, went along with Henry's decision (getting >along seems to be important in such positions), saying >2-way twos are a subset of Multi, hence should be >permitted. Okay, Bart, then get the language [of the ACBL convention classification regulations] >changed to agree with your opinion. [snip] If I was Supreme Ruler of the ACBL, I would not merely change the language of the ACBL alert/convention rules, I would scrap them in favour of something simpler. When rules are finickty complex, players and officials are placed in a lose/lose situation - either practical enforcement of rules, or legal enforcement of rules. This is a false dichotomy, since careful construction of the meta-systems behind the rules should make it practical to act legally. 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 Nov 28 16:25:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS5OoN10113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:24:50 +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 fAS5OiH10109 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:24:44 +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 fAS5Hww13622 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:17:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010401c177cb$9ef4e300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <000401c17337$ccc14be0$9b7f073e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] mamos and Strong Tom Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:11:16 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" \> From: Strong Tom < > > > Curious thing about the Norther Hempisphere and > > it superior knowledge of bridge. > > > +=+ Someone in the South put this case on blml > and invited world opinion +=+ > > > > Last time I played there, although not in the UK., > > I noticed that you could not reserve your right but > > had to call the director immediately after a > > hesitation, > > > +=+ Law 16A1 gives the SO an option to require this. > The English regs say that if there is a non-playing TD > it is better to call the Director.+=+ L16A1 gives the SO an option to prohibit the haughty practice of saying, "I reserve the right to summon the Director later." The ACBL exercised that option. That does not mean you have to call the TD immediately in ACBL-land when there is a hesitation. In fact, L16A2, which is not an option, says that the time to call the TD is when a player has substantial reason to believe that an L16A infraction has occurred. That, explains the footnote, can only be at sight of dummy or, as to declarer's hand, at the end of play. The ACBL "Election" regarding L16A1 is in the back of the Laws, poorly worded. However, our wordsmiths have determined that it does not (as it may not) contradict what L16A2 says. Of course everyone agrees that if opponents do not agree about the UI, the TD should be called immediately. It is interesting that the 1997 ACBL's Laws omitted the footnote to L16A2 in the paperback edition. Perhaps someone thought the footnote contradicted the "Election." The 1999 paperback has reinstated it. > > > > > > and that youhad to 'play bridge' after your opponents > > flagrantly used UI. > > > +=+ Australia subscribes to the same law on this. > There is no redress for any part of damage > to a non-offending side that is caused by its own > subsequent irrational, wild or gambling action. +=+ Contrary to general opinion, the current ACBLLC requirement is to rule in rough agreement with these words, at least when those ruling know what the word "egregious" means. Quote from the 1991 ACBLLC minutes: "...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. The particular case involved a blatantly bad play..." This has been restated by a prominent member of the NABC AC organization as: "NOS must continue to play bridge up to a reasonable level for players of their ability/experience." I think the ACBLLC's words are pretty much in accordance with the WBFLC's words, while these (unofficial) words are not. The "class of player" virus is sneaking in everywhere. 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 Nov 28 17:10:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS6AWv10142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:10:32 +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 fAS6AQH10138 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:10:27 +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 fAS63ew00361 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:03:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <012f01c177d1$f60cf8c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:00:12 -0800 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" > What is happening under L12C3 is this: something happens; a director is > called, he goes away and then comes back to the table, where he says in > effect: "abracadabra mumbo jumbo alakazam you get 58% and you get 42%". This > seems about right to the players, so they don't appeal (especially since, if > they were playing in Paris, the Daily Bulletin told them on more than one > occasion not to bother appealing because it wasn't worth it). But scores are > being split where they should not be split, and players have expectations > that are quite unjustified as to what a director or an AC might do in order > to "restore equity". > Yes. The seeming acquiescence of the players is understandable, since the OS is relieved not to suffer more and the NOS is relieved to get something rather than nothing. Good PR, but not good adjudication. 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 Nov 28 18:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS7fnq10191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:41:49 +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 fAS7fhH10187 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:41:44 +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 fAS7Yvw01117; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:34:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <015b01c177de$92e1c840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Cc: References: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:24:59 -0800 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: "business center" > Great fun here: met all sorts of people. > Not only have I met Marvin French, but more important: I have met Alice!!!!! And we both enjoyed meeting you very much. > I cannot wait for Marv to show you all Appeals Case 3 in the bulletin. Trust me, that is **NOT** what we decided!!!!!! Glad to know that, David. Maybe Linda will explain what happened here. The case is not available in a .txt version, and I don't know how to cut and paste from Acrobat, so I'll type it out: NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 Board 22 Vulnerability: E-W Dealer East Fred Allenspach S- K10987643 H- D- 5 C- Q1096 Jill Levin Barry Rigal S- J5 S- AQ H- AK76 H- J109532 D- Q43 D- J96 C- AK74 C- J8 Janet Lee S- 2 H- Q84 D- AK10874 C- 532 The bidding: West North East South Pass Pass 1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass Pass 4S All Pass (1) Alerted; strong (2) Not Alerted; transfer (3) Alerted; card-showing The Facts: 4S went down 2, +100 for E/W. The opening lead was the heart jack. The TD was called at the end of the auction when North explained that there had been a failure to Alert the transfer. West did not change her final call. East said he would have doubled 4S with the correct information. [No doubt this was said to the TD apart from the table, an abominable ACBL custom - mlf] The Director allowed the table result to stand since a second double seemed also clear at the time of the 4S bid (double of 4H was value-showing). The Appeal: E-W appealed the TD's ruling and were the only players that attended the hearing. E-W had discussed methods for action after a transfer. Without the Alert, East believed that there could be confusion of the meaning of a double of 4S where there would not have been had he been properly Alerted. Without a double by partner, West was unsure that she could defeat 4S or that her side could bid successfully. The Committee Decision: The Committee could not find a legal basis for protecting pairs whose methods depend on the proper Alerts by the opponents. [Yes, that's what it says!!!- mlf] Therefore the table result was allowed to stand. The N/S pair, however, clearly violated proper procedure by failing to Alert 4H. Since the Committee believed strongly that players should be held to a very high standard on Alerts of uncommon competitive conventions, N/S were assessed a 1/6 board PP and this record was referred to the Recorder. DIC of event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Henry Bethe (chair) Lowell Andrews, Lou Reich, DAVID STEVENSON ########### The AC's first sentence is so odd that many of us couldn't believe that David had anything to do with it. Evidently he didn't. I wonder what Barry's actions over a transfer are. Doubling to show the suit bid and some values seems best. Then West might well bid 5H (making) after East makes a forcing pass of 4S. Since a preempter is not supposed to bid a second time, and South surely wouldn't, plus 650 for N/S. That's what I would argue in Barry's place, but he seems to have taken a different tack that I don't understand. As everyone knows, I don't approve of PP assessments by ACs for Alert violations. Nor should the Recorder be involved. Recorders cannot be responsible for tracking Alert violations, which would require an army of assistants. Let TDs handle this sort of problem. 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 Nov 28 19:30:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS8UM610234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:30:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bruce.ecats.co.uk ([194.205.153.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAS8UGH10230 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:30:17 +1100 (EST) Subject: [BLML] - BadTrans Virus ... Please be careful! Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:23:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C177E5.F73B5330" Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC02ECDA@bruce.ecats.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-Topic: [BLML] - BadTrans Virus ... Please be careful! Thread-Index: AcF35fL+r9kVMTcNQpqGU7zHIBGCsg== From: "anna" To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C177E5.F73B5330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is a new and virulent virus doing the rounds - I have now received upwards of 80 emails with it attached from bridge players all over the world. If I have had one from you, I will have replied to tell you that you have it. You can find information about it at http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/badtrs_b.shtml I suggest you a) check your own machine carefully and b) make sure you have a fully updated virus detector installed and working. It has been rampant since 24 November and is spreading like wildfire. It isn't particularly dangerous - it isn't one of the ones that will wipe your hard drive, for example, but it emails itself out using your full mailing list, plus grabbing email addresses from anywhere it can find them, and at the same time installs a "Trojan" which will send information back to a central computer somewhere .. Things like your password, possibly documents etc. Not nice! Best regards anna ------_=_NextPart_001_01C177E5.F73B5330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [BLML] - BadTrans Virus ... Please be careful!

There is a new and virulent virus doing = the rounds - I have now received upwards of 80 emails with it attached = from bridge players all over the world. If I have had one from you, I = will have replied to tell you that you have it.

You can find information about it = at

http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/badtrs_b.shtml=

I suggest you a) check your own machine = carefully and b) make sure you have a fully updated virus detector = installed and working. It has been rampant since 24 November and is = spreading like wildfire. It isn't particularly dangerous - it isn't one = of the ones that will wipe your hard drive, for example, but it emails = itself out using your full mailing list, plus grabbing email addresses = from anywhere it can find them, and at the same time installs a = "Trojan" which will send information back to a central = computer somewhere .. Things like your password, possibly documents etc. = Not nice!

Best regards
anna

------_=_NextPart_001_01C177E5.F73B5330-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 20:27:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS9RNA10264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:27:23 +1100 (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 fAS9RHH10260 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:27:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA08285; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:20:29 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Nov 28 10:17:53 2001 +0100 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 <01KB8FNOZNWA00272I@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:20:10 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:20:07 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:20:09 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: law 82C To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=27Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n=27?= , 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 from Hans Olof Hallen: > > I agree that the number of VP:s can be less than 30, and > maybe even more > than 30. But what about this: > Inthe qualifying stage of, say the Bridge Olympiad, four > teams qualify for > the next round. team A has 200 VP, teams B and C 199 VP each. > B plays C in > the last round. team A happily scores 15 and think they are > through. But > when B plays C the TD > has tu use 82C on all 24 boards. Both B and C score 72-0 and > both get 25 VP. > Team A has no chance. > I hear you all say this does not happen and, sure, it does not, but > theoretically? > Comments? > It is an interesting question, which we have not solved yet. In the Oplympiad in Venice 1988 we used duplicted boards everywhere for the first time I think. Persuit, an inventive Frenchman, had developed a duplication machine of which we used at least ten there. But it had some problems, producing many 12 - 14 hands, which where given to the players. Since the boards where preduplicated the habit to count the number of cards was kind of suppressed. And Law 13 told us to award artificial adjusted scores if such a hand had made a call. The CTD then deemed the organisation responsible so only average-plusses where given. I didn't agree with that approach, but that didn't help much (too young). So I started the joke that the team with most 12-14 deals would become the winner of this worldchampionship (yes I know it won't work in the K.O phase, but it was just a joke). I have suggested earlier that a teams event never should have more than 30 VP to be distributed. A match in a RR is just a contest between two teams where in a pairs event you play against and are compared with the whole field. So there a board with more than the normal amount of mp's has to be accepted. My wish is that this idea goes into the teams regulations, stating that if the number of VP's exceeds 30 (becoming N) both results have to be mutiplied by 30/N. There is of course no reason to increase these numbers if the total should be less than 30. So Hans exaggerated in his example (as I did in my joke) but the problem is real and should get attention. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 28 20:42:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS9fiD12017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAS9fbH11994 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.183]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAS9YlB21932 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:34:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C038DED.C1E1CCD3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:58:21 +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] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions References: <200111240256.VAA08741@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c174ca$4c35e1e0$422d7ad5@com> <001201c17557$2d2ccd80$86327bd5@dodona> <3C02213C.A839E45@village.uunet.be> <003d01c17699$9fb074e0$f8317bd5@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Certum est quia impossibile est" [ Tertullian ] > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: 26 November 2001 11:02 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions > > > > > The current laws (as Grattan and I interpret > > them) do not allow for L12C3 to be used in > > cases of claims, > > > +=+ I had consulted ton for his view also. ~ G ~ +=+ I would hope there are a few others who interpret the Law in the same manner. When mentioning your austere name, I was shamelessly tagging on an authority to my meager references. I did not want to be accused of name-dropping by adding any more references. -- 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 Nov 28 20:42:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAS9fns12031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:49 +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 fAS9fgH12014 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.183]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAS9YrB21996 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:34:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0392F3.8FE3B493@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:19:47 +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] The Red Queen's Race References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Great story, Richard, and beautifully told. I would like to submit this for the annual David Burn BLML literary award, for which DB himself is of course ineligible because of fairness to others. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dlr E 3 > Vul NS 7 > AJ862 > A109862 > Me > K J1065 > AQ10982 653 > K104 973 > KJ7 Q54 > M.L.L.A.I.* > AQ98742 > KQJ4 > 5 > 3 > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass > 1S 2H 3C Pass > 3S Pass 4D Pass > 4S All pass > > The play was truncated: Ace of > hearts; King of spades switch to > the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. > > After that trick, declarer laid > his hand on the table, noting > that the only remaining tricks he > would lose were to my J10 of > trumps. > That is a perfectly logical claim given the hand that he thinks he holds. I find this a particularly important part of the ruling. We should not rule against this declarer for the enormous error of a faulty claim, but for the small error of a missorting. Not that the player should get off the hook, but a little sympathy is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, Law 70 speaks of equity. > Declarer is one of the two best > players in Canberra, and for him > most losing lines are irrational*. > Even so, I decided to summon the > TD, since I had noticed that the > pip on declarer's Queen of hearts > was a little bit too pointy. > > The TD unimaginatively ruled that > 4S was now two off, giving us the > additional tricks of the King of > diamonds and the Queen of hearts. > Well, L70 also speaks of doubtful points. Doubtful to me is the fact that declarer would notice the heart being a diamond before touching it. So I would rule as "what would happen if declarer does not notice until playing the queen of hearts, but before actually tabling the queen of diamonds". I conclude that there are 4 possible lines : -playing trumps (but I'd rather think it unlikely - it's not natural since it more often than not does not work - here it does but it's contrary to nature to go looking if a line that not often works does in this case, when the other lines always work) -playing diamonds to the ace, losing all chances of recovery (if my analysis is correct) -playing clubs (losing the chance of recovery, yes ?) -playing the heart king, then queen - oops. In the fourth line there is now a recovery point: since it's imps, the chance has to be taken, and it works. I believe this is a case where Antonio's proposed law change would be applicable, so under the 2007 laws I rule 33% made, 67% -2. Under the 1997 laws it's -2 I'm afraid. > However, as TD, I would have ruled > differently. > > Firstly, I would rule that it > would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. > to mis-sort his cards. The fact > that he had actually mis-sorted > his cards I would rule irrelevant. :-) > This follows the Maastricht > precedent where it was ruled > irrelevant to the claim on a > double squeeze, the inconvenient > fact that declarer had actually > mistimed his double squeeze. > I'm sure Richard realizes the difference. In his case the actual mistake came before the claim, in Maastricht it came afterwards. > Secondly, I would rule that it > would be irrational for declarer > to fail in 4S by not taking the > diamond finesse, ruffing out the > diamonds, crossing to the Ace of > clubs, and discarding the losing > Jack of hearts on a good diamond. > The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not > stated this only logical line of > play in his claim was irrelevant, > since given his class of player, > he is never required to make a > complete and comprehensive claim > statement. > Here you are wrong, Richard. We have an explanation why he did not give this complete statement. So we can exonerate him from this. Only when he is looking at the DQ, and he fails to give a complete statement, can we hold this against him. I would probably concur with your analysis that this player is good enough to consider that other lines are irrational. > Best wishes > > Richard > I doubt if this will be my last post before the new year, so I won't start with the wishes yet. -- 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 Nov 29 01:52:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASEjGU01037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:45:16 +1100 (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 fASEj5H01033 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:45:10 +1100 (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 JAA11554 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:38:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:40:37 -0500 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 Richard wrote: If I was Supreme Ruler of the ACBL, I would not merely change the language of the ACBL alert/convention rules, I would scrap them in favour of something simpler. ______________________________________________________ Fully agree. Last week again, I desperately tried to explain ACBL alerts to beginners in the context of a series of lessons called "Preparation to duplicate". I always end this lesson saying something like "I do not pretend that this alert procedure is simple or clever. I think it is the worst approach in the world but you have to deal with it for the moment. I hope ACBL will scrap this in a near future and use a simpler approach. In the meanwhile, do your best and alert if not sure." 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 Thu Nov 29 02:43:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASFher12933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 02:43:40 +1100 (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.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASFhXH12908 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 02:43:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([147.11.36.218]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA14384; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:35:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:40:24 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00de01c177b3$d0da3fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Its also worth noting that there are almost no Midchart level > > events here at the ACBL Nationals. Other than the top flight of > > the > > bracketed KOs, there are no Midchart level events until the Blue > > Ribbon Pairs tomorrow and the Reisinger BAMs on Sunday. > > Hi Richard, it was great meeting you in Las Vegas. Enjoyed playing against you and Alice as well. [Though I am still regreting pulling that double. One of our few bad boards that round] > I believe the LM Pairs was Mid-Chart, am I wrong? Sadly, I have not yet been able to achieve the coveted status of Life Master. David Stephenson would probably argue that this is good evidence that the title has not been completely degraded. In any case, here is a brief summary of my experiences trying to play Midchart conventions at the Nationals: No problem with anything in the Reisinger BAMs. As usual, the top level events are a pleasure to play in. The Directors running the Bracketed KO's were seeding strictly based on Master Points. The highest bracket that I was every able to place in was Bracket 4. This lead to a miserable situation for all. We were averaging +3 IMPs a board and won the finals of one KO by 5.4 IMPs per board. > Bart Bramley, chairman of the Competitions & Conventions > committee, went > along with Henry's decision (getting along seems to be > important in such > positions), saying 2-way twos are a subset of Multi, hence should > be permitted. Okay, Bart, then get the language changed to agree > with your > opinion. I have argued for a long time that it is impractical to rule in any other manner. Assuming that a bid showing a specific set of hands is sanctioned at a given level of competition, it is almost impossible to bar any bid showing a subset of the first set at the same level. As an example, suppose that the ruling had gone the other way and the pair in question was informed that they could not play 2D = weak 2 in Hearts. All that needs to be done is to change the definition of the bid in question to be that 2D = a weak two in hearts or a weak two in spades and then constrain the weak 2S option to a set of hands so rare as to effectively never occur. There is no real difference between the two situations. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAUFaNZbGc4pZHvJEQLO1wCg1P7Acqr/DR3JZh7McfHPuS8zUYkAn2zC t7LRNFFWhRjuoiRrE8KWJsBw =i9g6 -----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 Nov 29 04:41:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASHfEs17655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 04:41:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASHf8H17651 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 04:41:09 +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 fASHYLw10074 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:34:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000001c17832$d28ae360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> <015b01c177de$92e1c840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:17:55 -0800 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 Slight error here: > I wonder what Barry's actions over a transfer are. Doubling to show the > suit bid and some values seems best. Then West might well bid 5H > (making) after East makes a forcing pass of 4S. Since a preempter is not > supposed to bid a second time, and South surely wouldn't, plus 650 for > N/S. Make that +650 for E/W! 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 Thu Nov 29 05:32:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIWAW17680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:32:10 +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 fASIW4H17676 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:32:05 +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 fASIPHw01759 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:25:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002d01c17839$ed361ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:23:41 -0800 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: "Laval Dubreuil" > Richard wrote: > > If I was Supreme Ruler of the ACBL, I would not merely > change the language of the ACBL alert/convention rules, > I would scrap them in favour of something simpler. > ______________________________________________________ > Fully agree. > > Last week again, I desperately tried to explain ACBL > alerts to beginners in the context of a series of > lessons called "Preparation to duplicate". I always > end this lesson saying something like "I do not > pretend that this alert procedure is simple or > clever. I think it is the worst approach in the > world but you have to deal with it for the moment. > I hope ACBL will scrap this in a near future and > use a simpler approach. In the meanwhile, do your > best and alert if not sure." > You might want to download and distribute my one-page version of the 16-page ACBL Alert Procedure, which David Stevenson graciously has made available on his website: www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#general This was approved by Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, after six months of back-and-forth correspondence. Gary has stepped down, or been kicked down, from this position and has been replaced by Brad Holtsberry. Brad is not a TD type, as Gary was, but perhaps has skills that were thought sufficient for the job. He will be assisted by Gary, who will retain "15%" of his previous responsibilities. Gary was caught in a squeeze, with the BoD thinking he was too easy on ACBL TDs, and the TDs complaining he was too hard on them. I am urging Brad to subscribe to BLML. The ACBL Competition & Conventions committee finalized its "2002" Alert Procedure (AP) recommendations in its Las Vegas meeting, and passed them on to the BoD (which met after the NABC instead of the usual pre-NABC meeting). A few changes were made to the version submitted to the BoD in Toronto, which was not accepted. It appears that the new version will be accepted, based on my conversations with a number of ACBL Directors. Even if approved it will not take effect for a while, since the ACBL convention card will have to be revised. Maybe next summer? Sad to say, the new AP, which is supposed to be simpler than the current AP, has been more difficult for me to fit on one WordPerfect page than was the current one. My impression is that the C&C bases its recommendations mostly on the needs and wishes of high-level competitors, not on those of the lower echelons. Example: Most doubles will not be Alertable unless their meanings are highly unusual or unexpected. "Expected" meanings are nowhere defined, but no doubt "expected" by high-level players are Advancive Doubles, Support Doubles, Action Doubles, Responsive Doubles, Maximal Doubles, Card-Showing Doubles, and such, while simple penalty doubles of overcalls are "unexpected" and therefore Alertable. Lower level players would better appreciate my suggested rule: All non-penalty doubles after partner has acted are Alertable. But that's too simple. 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 Nov 29 05:35:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIZos17694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:35:50 +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 fASIZiH17690 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:35:44 +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 fASISZj01638; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:28:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <010401c177cb$9ef4e300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <000401c17337$ccc14be0$9b7f073e@dodona> <010401c177cb$9ef4e300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:25:58 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] mamos and Strong Tom Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:11 PM -0800 11/27/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >It is interesting that the 1997 ACBL's Laws omitted the footnote to >L16A2 in the paperback edition. Perhaps someone thought the footnote >contradicted the "Election." The 1999 paperback has reinstated it. My second printing (November 1997) of the Laws came with an errata page, dated October 28, 1998, indicating that the footnote had been omitted, and giving its text. 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAUs3b2UW3au93vOEQKs5wCdFF9n+XVu4Z6aHYOtDVEEUcnpHWgAoJkq UXg+rk2lQa3mNuWm98ppGKem =n3kW -----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 Nov 29 05:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIcCp17709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:38:12 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASIc6H17705 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:38:07 +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 fASISGj01084; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:28:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00de01c177b3$d0da3fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001501c1729e$cff936e0$c13467c0@isi.com> <00de01c177b3$d0da3fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:20:14 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:17 PM -0800 11/27/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >Okay, Bart, then get the language changed to agree with your >opinion. Or get the BoD to issue a ruling that the reg doesn't mean what it says. :-) 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAUs1r2UW3au93vOEQJp4wCfViSsLzpYYho0bUhbnks6ibEZ3fQAoPez BsccuOnRRV7sfJjJd5qylGeP =HhQ1 -----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 Nov 29 05:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIidA17727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:44:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASIiXH17723 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:44:33 +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 fASIbkw07376 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:37:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c1783b$aa954f40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:36:56 -0800 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" > > In any case, here is a brief summary of my experiences trying to play > Midchart conventions at the Nationals: > > No problem with anything in the Reisinger BAMs. As usual, the top > level events are a pleasure to play in. > > The Directors running the Bracketed KO's were seeding strictly based > on Master Points. > The highest bracket that I was every able to place in was Bracket 4. > This lead to a miserable situation for all. We were averaging +3 > IMPs a board and won the finals of one KO by 5.4 IMPs per board. I do not play in these events, as my potential teams cannot travel to NABCs, while Alice and I play pair events only. So I don't know how they are run. I am surprised that you cannot enter any higher bracket you wish to enter. If not, the Conditions of Contest should be changed. Flight A pair games welcome those with 0 to infinity masterpoints. > > > Bart Bramley, chairman of the Competitions & Conventions > > committee, went > > along with Henry's decision (getting along seems to be > > important in such > > positions), saying 2-way twos are a subset of Multi, hence should > > be permitted. Okay, Bart, then get the language changed to agree > > with your > > opinion. > > I have argued for a long time that it is impractical to rule in any > other manner. > Assuming that a bid showing a specific set of hands is sanctioned at > a given level of competition, it is almost impossible to bar any bid > showing a subset of the first set at the same level. > > As an example, suppose that the ruling had gone the other way and the > pair in question was informed that they could not play 2D = weak 2 in > Hearts. > All that needs to be done is to change the definition of the bid in > question to be that 2D = a weak two in hearts or a weak two in spades > and then constrain the weak 2S option to a set of hands so rare as to > effectively never occur. There is no real difference between the two > situations. > Whatever. The BoD was very explicit in saying that TWO-WAY TWO BIDS are illegal. That leaves no room for interpretation, no matter how logical one's arguments are. I cannot fit your suggestion into that convention, unfortunately. 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 Nov 29 05:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIjUb17739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:45:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fASIjOH17735 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:45:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fASIcP610573; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:38:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC02ECDA@bruce.ecats.co.uk> References: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC02ECDA@bruce.ecats.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:33:05 -0500 To: "anna" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] - BadTrans Virus ... Please be careful! Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:23 AM +0000 11/28/01, anna wrote: >There is a new and virulent virus doing the rounds One should note that this thing, like most, only affects Windows machines. Not a problem for we Mac users. :-) 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAUvL72UW3au93vOEQKcVgCfTOyDcfK4qu/OqXb0kB7/gmmZV4UAn3Mh OUCw/bU80KP3ThY5fUkOXGQ4 =ko7U -----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 Nov 29 05:55:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASIshf17751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:54:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASIsbH17747 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:54:38 +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 fASIlow12256 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:47:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004301c1783d$121ccca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001501c1729e$cff936e0$c13467c0@isi.com> <00de01c177b3$d0da3fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:46:01 -0800 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" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Okay, Bart, then get the language changed to agree with your > >opinion. > > Or get the BoD to issue a ruling that the reg doesn't mean what it says. :-) All they have to do is change the language to read "specified or unspecified" major. I submitted this recommendation many times over the years, and as recently as a few months ago. The C&C has it in their possession, but it was not on their agenda in Las Vegas. Gary Blaiss said I must also submit a defense against "Two-Way Two Bids," but I haven't had time to do that. Is "Double to show the suit bid and bid the weak-two suit for takeout" sufficient? That's what I would play. 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 Nov 29 06:05:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASJ5Rl17777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:05:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASJ5LH17773 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:05:22 +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 fASIwCj02338; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:58:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002d01c17839$ed361ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002d01c17839$ed361ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:48:27 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:23 AM -0800 11/28/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >This was approved by Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, after >six months of back-and-forth correspondence. Gary has stepped down, or >been kicked down, from this position and has been replaced by Brad >Holtsberry. Brad is not a TD type, as Gary was, but perhaps has skills >that were thought sufficient for the job I don't understand this. One would think that a major qualification for the job of Chief Tournament Director is at least *some* experience as a TD. One wonders how the CTDs of other jurisdictions might view the ACBL TDs' contention that Mr. Blaiss was "too hard on them". 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAUzzL2UW3au93vOEQJvVQCg0wPmQW35y22Y5CYBsrt15CwAuUsAoPsg d1XoE2WqL3p5o8K3tvQ5CjSm =cAVt -----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 Nov 29 06:46:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASJkHV17806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:46:17 +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 fASJkBH17802 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:46:12 +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 fASJdOw08836 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:39:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007c01c17844$40d20720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002d01c17839$ed361ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:34:32 -0800 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" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >This was approved by Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, after > >six months of back-and-forth correspondence. Gary has stepped down, or > >been kicked down, from this position and has been replaced by Brad > >Holtsberry. Brad is not a TD type, as Gary was, but perhaps has skills > >that were thought sufficient for the job > > I don't understand this. One would think that a major qualification > for the job of Chief Tournament Director is at least *some* > experience as a TD. He might have had, I don't know. I am pretty sure I asked him if he was a TD back in Michigan, from whence he comes, and he said "No." That doesn't mean he lacks TD experience. He appears to be an intelligent young man (30-ish?), but I don't know what "credentials" he has. I'd love to have seen his resumé. At least one ACBL Director considers him unqualified for the job, saying to me, "I don't know what my friends were thinking of." I think people should wait and see what happens before making such statements. Give the guy a chance. > > One wonders how the CTDs of other jurisdictions might view the ACBL > TDs' contention that Mr. Blaiss was "too hard on them". Perhaps some ACBL TD reading this will inform us on the subject. It may have to do with working conditions rather than table rulings. 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 Nov 29 07:30:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASKUUI17829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:30:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mosaiccomputing.com (mosaiccomputing.com [209.55.67.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fASKUPH17825 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:30:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from c1375553-a.wntck1.sfba.home.com [65.0.212.203] by mosaiccomputing.com; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:23:37 -0800 Message-ID: <057c01c1784a$627a9bc0$6401a8c0@home.com> From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> <003101c1783b$aa954f40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:22:21 -0800 Organization: What? Me organized? MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Marv wrote: > I do not play in these events, as my potential teams cannot > travel to NABCs, while Alice and I play pair events only. So I > don't know how they are run. I am surprised that you cannot > enter any higher bracket you wish to enter. If not, the > Conditions of Contest should be changed. Flight A pair games > welcome those with 0 to infinity masterpoints. Since there are, by definition, a finite number of teams in each bracket, allowing teams to "play up" would force higher ranked teams into the lower brackets--and Mrs. McGillicuddy is playing in these events specifically so she doesn't have to face the top teams. Permitting a teams of young hotshots into the top bracket is a good idea, until it forces 4 pro players into the second bracket, and my team gets pushed down into the 3rd bracket where I don't want to be and I'm not wanted by the other players. Of course, we could just bring back the open knockouts............. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 08:21:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASLKeT18393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:20:40 +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 fASLKYH18389 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:20:35 +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 fASLDfI00461; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:13:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fASLDep21381; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:13:40 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:13:40 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Marvin L. French" cc: BLML , Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-Reply-To: <015b01c177de$92e1c840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 > Board 22 > Vulnerability: E-W > Dealer East > > Fred Allenspach > S- K10987643 > H- > D- 5 > C- Q1096 > > Jill Levin Barry Rigal > S- J5 S- AQ > H- AK76 H- J109532 > D- Q43 D- J96 > C- AK74 C- J8 > > Janet Lee > S- 2 > H- Q84 > D- AK10874 > C- 532 > > The bidding: > > West North East South > Pass Pass > 1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > Pass 4S All Pass > > (1) Alerted; strong > (2) Not Alerted; transfer > (3) Alerted; card-showing > The Committee Decision: The Committee could not find a legal basis for > protecting pairs whose methods depend on the proper Alerts by the > opponents. [Yes, that's what it says!!!- mlf] Therefore the table > result was allowed to stand. > The AC's first sentence is so odd that many of us couldn't believe that > David had anything to do with it. Evidently he didn't. I asked him since I couldn't believe this either and the committee simply decided that EW damaged themselves. After a strong club and a value showing bid, EW should not let NS play undoubled. That means that either Barry's pass was forcing and Jill should have acted, or Barry's pass wasn't forcing but then he shouldn't pass. Simple case really. David wrote a correction but that didn't make it in to the bulletin. Now for the interesting sstuff: does anyone have a write-up of board 14 from the Reisinger yesterday? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 08:26:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASLQft18405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:26:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASLQaH18401 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:26:36 +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 fASLJmw26001 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:19:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009a01c17852$42874fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] L24 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:09:09 -0800 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 Is an honor card exposed during the auction UI to the culprit's partner? That was the subject of some BLML discussion, as I noted when deleting some postings that I did not have time to absorb. Here is what a Las Vegas NABC AC had to say in the case of Appeal #1: "The first issue the Committee discussed was whether the exposed card was unauthorized information to West. L24 avoids the issue for the side that eventually declares. However, L16 states 'Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays...To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction.' " The quote is accurate, including the lack of commas arround the word "extraneous," which makes legal calls and plays extraneous information. Grattan please note. Why not just omit the word "other"? 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 Nov 29 09:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASM56q18433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:05:06 +1100 (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 fASM50H18429 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:05:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([147.11.36.218]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA19784 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:01:47 -0800 Message-ID: <005701c17858$4623efe0$da240b93@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Since there are, by definition, a finite number of > teams in each bracket, I don't agree with this basic premise. Suppose that I have 32 teams in bracket X and I only have enough time to have 4 rounds. I fail to see the problem with running two parallel events, each with 16 teams. Alternatively, if I have 24 teams who want to play in bracket Y, I can run one event with 16 teams playing 4 rounds of 24 boards. I can run a second event with 8 teams playing 3 rounds of 24 boards with a 48 board final. I can understand arguments that suggest that you should not allow a team to play up with that would significantly compromise the reduction, however, haven't a blanket policy which forbids teams to play and only uses masterpoints to extablish brackets is assine. > allowing teams to "play up" would force higher > ranked teams into the lower brackets--and Mrs. McGillicuddy is > playing in these events specifically so she doesn't have to face > the top teams. Mrs. McGillicuddy doesn't care about the number of master points the opposition has. She just wants to play against idiots so she has a prayer ofcollecting gold points. I'm sure she [and her ilk] would be perfectly happy to remove any competent competitors. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAVeytZbGc4pZHvJEQL7xQCbB7CnOEpnef+QE7vJTVBpINVtr0EAn0fm 8P9roXGYEOMzTwSd8ub3Z6kS =Wdhf -----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 Nov 29 09:47:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASMlB521924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:47:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fASMl5H21907 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:47:05 +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 fASMeHw21514 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:40:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a401c1785d$78d06720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> <003101c1783b$aa954f40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <057c01c1784a$627a9bc0$6401a8c0@home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:29:38 -0800 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: "Chris Pisarra" > Marv wrote: > > > I am surprised that you cannot > > enter any higher bracket you wish to enter. If not, the > > Conditions of Contest should be changed. Flight A pair games > > welcome those with 0 to infinity masterpoints. > > Since there are, by definition, a finite number of teams in each > bracket, allowing teams to "play up" would force higher ranked teams into > the lower brackets--and Mrs. McGillicuddy is playing in these events > specifically so she doesn't have to face the top teams. Yes, I see the problem. Bracket sizes are determined before entries are sold, the Tech Files say, which means 16 teams for a four-session event. This requires seeding of the brackets, with flexible masterpoint designators. My ignorance made me think that the brackets had predetermined masterpoint ranges, as in stratified pairs. > Permitting a teams > of young hotshots into the top bracket is a good idea, until it forces 4 pro > players into the second bracket, and my team gets pushed down into the 3rd > bracket where I don't want to be and I'm not wanted by the other players. Flighted knockouts solve that problem, allowing anyone to play "up" and letting Mrs McGillicuddy play in her flight. TDs don't like them, because awkward flight sizes require 3-ways or round-robins, whereas the standard four-session 16-team bracket sizes are very convenient. Also, an extra-large flight may require splitting into brackets, requiring even more work. That's why flighted KOs are rare, I suppose. By the way, Mid-Chart conventions may be allowed by an SO for bracket designators of more than 1000 masterpoints. That's what the Tech Files say, but I am told by an ACBL TD that the top flight gets to use Mid-Chart regardless of its masterpoint designator, and lower flights do not. If any of the above is incorrect, I'd appreciate being corrected. 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 Nov 29 09:57:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASMvGD23481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:57:16 +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 fASMvAH23456 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:57:10 +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 fASMoMw26068 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:50:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00aa01c1785e$e01de8c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005701c17858$4623efe0$da240b93@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:46:25 -0800 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" > > > Since there are, by definition, a finite number of > > teams in each bracket, > > I don't agree with this basic premise. > Suppose that I have 32 teams in bracket X and I only have enough time > to have 4 rounds. I fail to see the problem with running two > parallel events, each with 16 teams. Perfectly legal, according to the Tech Files. No reason not to do it. It's up to the SO to establish such criteria. It's also okay to split a flight into two equal brackets in a flighted KO event. Of course they don't allow a split that produces two groups of eight when four sessions are available. Also, when only 8 teams are entered in flight A, the event can be cut to three sessions for them rather than change the flight masterpoint designator to add more teams. > 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 Nov 29 10:37:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fASNbWZ00948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:37:32 +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 fASNbQH00944 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:37:27 +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 fASNUdw15738 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:30:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d201c17864$7b841140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:25:34 -0800 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 > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 > > > Board 22 > > Vulnerability: E-W > > Dealer East > > > > Fred Allenspach > > S- K10987643 > > H- > > D- 5 > > C- Q1096 > > > > Jill Levin Barry Rigal > > S- J5 S- AQ > > H- AK76 H- J109532 > > D- Q43 D- J96 > > C- AK74 C- J8 > > > > Janet Lee > > S- 2 > > H- Q84 > > D- AK10874 > > C- 532 > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > Pass Pass > > 1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > > Pass 4S All Pass > > > > (1) Alerted; strong > > (2) Not Alerted; transfer > > (3) Alerted; card-showing > > > The Committee Decision: The Committee could not find a legal basis for > > protecting pairs whose methods depend on the proper Alerts by the > > opponents. [Yes, that's what it says!!!- mlf] Therefore the table > > result was allowed to stand. > > > The AC's first sentence is so odd that many of us couldn't believe > > that David had anything to do with it. Evidently he didn't. > > I asked him since I couldn't believe this either and the committee > simply decided that EW damaged themselves. After a strong club and > a value showing bid, EW should not let NS play undoubled. That > means that either Barry's pass was forcing and Jill should have > acted, or Barry's pass wasn't forcing but then he shouldn't pass. > Simple case really. David > wrote a correction but that didn't make it in to the bulletin. > I don't think E/W did anything so egregious as to lose redress, especially since they were denied the chance to employ their countermeasures to transfer bids. Besides, it doesn't matter how terrible their actions were if there was no way to get a superior result by bidding perfectly after the MI. 4S doubled down two doesn't make up for the damage, after all. Whatever, loss of redress doesn't mean that the N/S score cannot be adjusted. The AC has to ask about the E/W partnership agreements in re transfers, and then determine the worst result that was at all probable for N/S. And the most favorable result for E/W, absent the 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 Thu Nov 29 11:10:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT098Q00970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:09:08 +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 fAT093H00966 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:09:03 +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 QAA06904; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:02:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:25:34 PST." <00d201c17864$7b841140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:02:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > > Vulnerability: E-W > > > Dealer East > > > > > > Fred Allenspach > > > S- K10987643 > > > H- > > > D- 5 > > > C- Q1096 > > > > > > Jill Levin Barry Rigal > > > S- J5 S- AQ > > > H- AK76 H- J109532 > > > D- Q43 D- J96 > > > C- AK74 C- J8 > > > > > > Janet Lee > > > S- 2 > > > H- Q84 > > > D- AK10874 > > > C- 532 > > > > > > The bidding: > > > > > > West North East South > > > Pass Pass > > > 1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > > > Pass 4S All Pass > > > > > > (1) Alerted; strong > > > (2) Not Alerted; transfer > > > (3) Alerted; card-showing > I don't think E/W did anything so egregious as to lose redress, > especially since they were denied the chance to employ their > countermeasures to transfer bids. I think letting them play undoubled is pretty bad. On the other hand, you're right that their inability to get to 5H was not their own fault. If L12C3 were in effect, I'd consider awarding E/W +450, on this reasoning: They should have at the very least doubled the final contract, getting themselves +300 instead of +100. So 200 points of the damage was self-inflicted. If the committee judges it "likely" (in the language of L12C2) that E/W would have gotten to 5H with proper explanations, then they get +650 for making 5H, minus the 200 that they did to themselves. Of course, this is all dreaming since L12C3 isn't effective in the ACBL. -- 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 Nov 29 11:53:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT0qtN00994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:52:55 +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 fAT0qmH00990 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:52:49 +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 AAA07797 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:46:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:44:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> <015b01c177de$92e1c840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <015b01c177de$92e1c840$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 <015b01c177de$92e1c840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "business center" > >> Great fun here: met all sorts of people. > >> Not only have I met Marvin French, but more important: I have met >Alice!!!!! > >And we both enjoyed meeting you very much. > >> I cannot wait for Marv to show you all Appeals Case 3 in the >bulletin. Trust me, that is **NOT** what we decided!!!!!! > >Glad to know that, David. Maybe Linda will explain what happened here. > >The case is not available in a .txt version, and I don't know how to cut >and paste from Acrobat, so I'll type it out: > >NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 > Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? >Board 22 >Vulnerability: E-W >Dealer East > > Fred Allenspach > S- K10987643 > H- > D- 5 > C- Q1096 > >Jill Levin Barry Rigal >S- J5 S- AQ >H- AK76 H- J109532 >D- Q43 D- J96 >C- AK74 C- J8 > > Janet Lee > S- 2 > H- Q84 > D- AK10874 > C- 532 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > Pass Pass >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass >Pass 4S All Pass > >(1) Alerted; strong >(2) Not Alerted; transfer >(3) Alerted; card-showing > >The Facts: 4S went down 2, +100 for E/W. The opening lead was the heart >jack. The TD was called at the end of the auction when North explained >that there had been a failure to Alert the transfer. West did not change >her final call. East said he would have doubled 4S with the correct >information. [No doubt this was said to the TD apart from the table, an >abominable ACBL custom - mlf] The Director allowed the table result to >stand since a second double seemed also clear at the time of the 4S bid >(double of 4H was value-showing). > >The Appeal: E-W appealed the TD's ruling and were the only players that >attended the hearing. E-W had discussed methods for action after a >transfer. Without the Alert, East believed that there could be confusion >of the meaning of a double of 4S where there would not have been had he >been properly Alerted. Without a double by partner, West was unsure that >she could defeat 4S or that her side could bid successfully. > >The Committee Decision: The Committee could not find a legal basis for >protecting pairs whose methods depend on the proper Alerts by the >opponents. [Yes, that's what it says!!!- mlf] Therefore the table >result was allowed to stand. The N/S pair, however, clearly violated >proper procedure by failing to Alert 4H. Since the Committee believed >strongly that players should be held to a very high standard on Alerts >of uncommon competitive conventions, N/S were assessed a 1/6 board PP >and this record was referred to the Recorder. > >DIC of event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Henry Bethe (chair) Lowell Andrews, Lou Reich, DAVID >STEVENSON >########### > >The AC's first sentence is so odd that many of us couldn't believe that >David had anything to do with it. Evidently he didn't. > >I wonder what Barry's actions over a transfer are. Doubling to show the >suit bid and some values seems best. Then West might well bid 5H >(making) after East makes a forcing pass of 4S. Since a preempter is not >supposed to bid a second time, and South surely wouldn't, plus 650 for >N/S. > >That's what I would argue in Barry's place, but he seems to have taken a >different tack that I don't understand. > >As everyone knows, I don't approve of PP assessments by ACs for Alert >violations. Nor should the Recorder be involved. Recorders cannot be >responsible for tracking Alert violations, which would require an army >of assistants. Let TDs handle this sort of problem. > >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/ -- 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 Nov 29 12:23:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT1Meg01018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:22:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAT1MZH01014 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:22:35 +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 RAA08427; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:15:44 -0800 Message-Id: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:44:38 GMT." Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:15:44 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 > > > Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? You're kidding, right? North has UI from the misexplanation (failure to alert), but passing by North is not a LA no matter how many hearts South's pass shows. -- Adam > >Board 22 > >Vulnerability: E-W > >Dealer East > > > > Fred Allenspach > > S- K10987643 > > H- > > D- 5 > > C- Q1096 > > > >Jill Levin Barry Rigal > >S- J5 S- AQ > >H- AK76 H- J109532 > >D- Q43 D- J96 > >C- AK74 C- J8 > > > > Janet Lee > > S- 2 > > H- Q84 > > D- AK10874 > > C- 532 > > > >The bidding: > > > >West North East South > > Pass Pass > >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > >Pass 4S All Pass > > > >(1) Alerted; strong > >(2) Not Alerted; transfer > >(3) Alerted; card-showing -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 13:49:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT2mLq01056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:48:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT2mFH01052 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:48:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6AWT; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:41:25 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011128213635.00a690b0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:41:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions In-Reply-To: <057c01c1784a$627a9bc0$6401a8c0@home.com> References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> <003101c1783b$aa954f40$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 If someone played on a team with 1600 points, but wrote down 6000 points what could be expected to happen? Would the TD's notice? Would they care? Is there an ACBL policy covering this? Does anyone know? Walt It seems that most are trying to write down the smallest possible total, anyway. At 12:22 PM 11/28/01 -0800, you wrote: >Marv wrote: > > > I do not play in these events, as my potential teams cannot > > travel to NABCs, while Alice and I play pair events only. So I > > don't know how they are run. I am surprised that you cannot > > enter any higher bracket you wish to enter. If not, the > > Conditions of Contest should be changed. Flight A pair games > > welcome those with 0 to infinity masterpoints. > > > Since there are, by definition, a finite number of teams in each >bracket, allowing teams to "play up" would force higher ranked teams into >the lower brackets--and Mrs. McGillicuddy is playing in these events >specifically so she doesn't have to face the top teams. Permitting a teams >of young hotshots into the top bracket is a good idea, until it forces 4 pro >players into the second bracket, and my team gets pushed down into the 3rd >bracket where I don't want to be and I'm not wanted by the other players. > > Of course, we could just bring back the open knockouts............. > > Chris > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 29 13:54:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT2scW01068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT2sWH01064 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:54:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6AWW; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:47:44 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011128214554.00a59e30@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:47:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions In-Reply-To: <005701c17858$4623efe0$da240b93@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 Thanks, Richard. Your last paragraph is a masterful statement of the true situation. Walt At 02:01 PM 11/28/01 -0800, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > > Since there are, by definition, a finite number of > > teams in each bracket, > >I don't agree with this basic premise. >Suppose that I have 32 teams in bracket X and I only have enough time >to have 4 rounds. I fail to see the problem with running two >parallel events, each with 16 teams. > >Alternatively, if I have 24 teams who want to play in bracket Y, I >can run one event with 16 teams playing 4 rounds of 24 boards. I can >run a second event with 8 teams playing 3 rounds of 24 boards with a >48 board final. > >I can understand arguments that suggest that you should not allow a >team to play up with that would significantly compromise the >reduction, however, haven't a blanket policy which forbids teams to >play and only uses masterpoints to extablish brackets is assine. > > > allowing teams to "play up" would force higher > > ranked teams into the lower brackets--and Mrs. McGillicuddy is > > playing in these events specifically so she doesn't have to face > > the top teams. > >Mrs. McGillicuddy doesn't care about the number of master points the >opposition has. She just wants to play against idiots so she has a >prayer ofcollecting gold points. I'm sure she [and her ilk] would be >perfectly happy to remove any competent competitors. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use > >iQA/AwUBPAVeytZbGc4pZHvJEQL7xQCbB7CnOEpnef+QE7vJTVBpINVtr0EAn0fm >8P9roXGYEOMzTwSd8ub3Z6kS >=Wdhf >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 14:35:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT3ZB901091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:35:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail35.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail35.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT3Z5H01087 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:35:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail35.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011129032816.HLQS15766.femail35.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:28:16 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:28:31 -0800 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) 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 well, we do have someone who was there for the entire hearing :-) I suspect I will have Barry's write-up in a few days... 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 Nov 29 15:29:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT4SrK01774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:28:53 +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 fAT4SmH01770 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:28:48 +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 fAT4M0w22019 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:22:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:18:07 -0800 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 Stratified Open Pairs, Nov 18, 1st session Board 29 Vulnerability: Both Dealer: North S- 74 H- 6 D- AJ10732 C- J632 S- A9852 S- K103 H- 872 H- KJ109 D- Q985 D- K64 C- A C- 1095 S- QJ6 H- AQ543 D- C- KQ874 The bidding: West North East South 2D Pass 2H (1) All Pass (1) Not Alerted; CC not marked as non-forcing The Facts: Opening lead was the club ace. 2H made two, +110 for N/S. The TD was called at the end of the auction. Souith did not know if 2H was forcing, and was not going to pass 2D with a void. West said that he would have bid 2S if he had known 2H was non-forcing. The TD changed the contract to 2S, +110 for E/W (Laws 21B3, 40C, 12C2). The Appeal: South said he didn't think about whether or not 2H was forcing. He never considered passing with a diamond void. North said he knew they were playing Ogust, didn't know if they had discussed if new suits were forcing. He decided to pass since he was minimum with only one heart. South said 2S couldn't be the final contract because he would have balanced with 3C. N/S accepted that 3C might not buy the contract, but they certainly wouldn't sell out to 2S. E/W said West is very aggressive and would definitely have bid 2S. They were willing to cite other hands as examples if necessary. They believed that were owed an Alert if North was treating 2H as non-forcing. E/W asked about the 2H bid before the opening lead. North said they hadn't really discussed it, but he thought it might be non-forcing because they were playing Ogust. The Panel Decision: This case potentially had several issues to address, but all hinged on whether there had been an infraction. South's CC was marked Ogust. The red box marked "New Suit NF" was not checked. North had lost his CC [CCs are often "lost" in ACBL events - mlf]. There was no dispute that North had, in fact, said at the table that they hadn't really discussed if new suits are forcing. The Panel was satisfied that there had not been a violation of Law. L40B states "A player may not make a call...unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." No agreement of "New Suit NF" existed and therefore E/W were not due an Alert. Thus all other issues became moot. The table result of 2H, +110 for N/S, was restored. DIC: Terry Lavender Panel: Gary Zeiger (Reviewer), Doug Grove, Matt Smith Players consulted: none ############ My opinion: N/S did have a disclosed agreement, whether they knew it or not, since the CC documents partnership agreements. If that red box isn't checked, the communicated agreement is that new suit responses to weak twos are forcing. When a partnership makes a call that does not accord with their CC, the TD/AC should not listen to testimony that there was no agreement. E/W were due an Alert. I held the West hand at another table, and the same situation arose. When the TD took me away from the table for questioning (ugh!) I said I would have bid 2S had 2H been Alerted as non-forcing. This TD sensibly later ruled result stands, +110 for N/S. It's interesting that two TDs in the same event ruled oppositely, isn't it? I did not appeal, thank goodness, when I saw that a bid of 2S would have led to an inferior result, not a better result. 2S would not have bought the contract, 3C would have (if not, 3S surely would be doubled and down 200), so no damage. N/S just get a mild lecture about the need to have explicit agreements about common auctions following their conventional or preemptive bids, and to mark their CC accordingly. 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 Nov 29 15:48:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT4mYU01792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:48:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT4mTH01788 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:48:30 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 51F6D48744; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:41:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:31 -0800 To: Adam Beneschan From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:15 PM -0800 11/28/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >John Probst wrote: > >> >NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 >> > >> Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? > >You're kidding, right? North has UI from the misexplanation (failure >to alert), but passing by North is not a LA no matter how many hearts >South's pass shows. John may or may not have been kidding, but after three passes North will have no opportunity to correct to 4S. John suggested EW +400, not EW +2100. I spoke to Henry Bethe about the writeup - he agreed that it was flawed in suggesting that there was no Law dealing with misinformation. Besides that, what disturbed me about this and some other writeups was that there was no mention of the asymmetric provisions of 12C2. -- Adam Wildavsky Principal Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.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 Nov 29 16:09:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT595j01812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:09:05 +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 fAT590H01808 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:09:00 +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 fAT52Cw16804 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:02:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f901c17892$b3823da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:58:46 -0800 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 letting them play undoubled is pretty bad. On the other hand, > you're right that their inability to get to 5H was not their own > fault. > > If L12C3 were in effect, I'd consider awarding E/W +450, on this > reasoning: They should have at the very least doubled the final > contract, getting themselves +300 instead of +100. So 200 points of > the damage was self-inflicted. If the committee judges it "likely" > (in the language of L12C2) that E/W would have gotten to 5H with > proper explanations, then they get +650 for making 5H, minus the 200 > that they did to themselves. Of course, this is all dreaming since > L12C3 isn't effective in the ACBL. Thank goodness, if it's to be used like that. L12C3 is subordinate to L12C2, which says that the NOS gets the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. That is surely +650 (if we can assume that Barry's counter to transfers would get them there with sufficient likelihood), so there is no need for L12C3. When damage is irreparable, as in this case (5H probably unreachable because of the MI), all damage is consequent, none is merely subsequent, so nothing the NOS does can be considered as grounds for loss, even partial loss, of redress. Once more I have to repeat that the "likely" in L12C2 must not be taken out of context. "The most favorable result that was likely" need have only a 1/3 probability, according to the ACBLLC guideline. 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 Nov 29 16:16:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT5G9102824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:16:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fAT5G3H02812 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:16:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fAT558628130; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:05:15 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007c01c17844$40d20720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002d01c17839$ed361ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007c01c17844$40d20720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:59:57 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:34 AM -0800 11/28/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >I think >people should wait and see what happens before making such statements. >Give the guy a chance. Works for 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAXCDb2UW3au93vOEQIoTwCgu0HjQcHjUtq2TVhtU7QcJys3xsMAn3ju 2UtC3P4OF3bcRJVEphC7sZ+6 =cxlf -----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 Nov 29 16:58:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT5van12688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:57:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fAT5vUH12678 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:57:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fAT5j1615786; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:45:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00a401c1785d$78d06720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> <003101c1783b$aa954f40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <057c01c1784a$627a9bc0$6401a8c0@home.com> <00a401c1785d$78d06720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:44:14 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:29 PM -0800 11/28/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >By the way, Mid-Chart conventions may be allowed by an SO for bracket >designators of more than 1000 masterpoints. That's what the Tech Files >say, but I am told by an ACBL TD that the top flight gets to use >Mid-Chart regardless of its masterpoint designator, and lower flights >do not. The general conditions of contest for KOs say that 1. The ACBL General Convention Chart governs bidding and carding methods permitted, restricted, or not permitted in KO events. 2. The ACBL Mid-Chart or SuperChart may be permitted by sponsors. The Mid-Chart is permitted at NABCs in unrestricted Flight A KOs and any bracket of a bracketed KO where the bracket designator for the lowest ranking team is 1000 or more masterpoints. The Mid-Chart itself says This chart (or any part) may apply to any sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor's option provided that this has been included in tournament advertising. (The requirement for advertising does not extend to use in Flt. A or high brackets of KOs.) What that says to me is that the Mid-Chart is permitted in KOs at sectionally and regionally rated events at SO's option, provided that the intent to allow it is included in tournament advertising, for those events including brackets below 1000 MPs. Of course, SOs can choose *not* to allow the Mid-Chart in such events. I suppose if each bracket is considered a separate event, then the decision can be made separately for each bracket. Butch Campbell tells me that he guesses that 80% of Regionals permit the Mid-Chart in Flight A events or the top bracket of KOs, and that very few sectionals are large enough to have a flighted event or a bracketed KO where the top bracket would be comprised mostly of teams of that level. I think the latter was a round-about way of saying that one would rarely see the Mid-Chart at a Sectional. :-) There's a Regional in Syracuse in January. The flyer I have says "Midchart allowed in Bracket 1 of KOs". Doesn't say anything about it for any other events. And it's being advertised as a 'split' regional, concurrent with one in Harrisburg (both in District 4). The ad for the Harrisburg event doesn't mention the Mid-chart at all. I suppose it doesn't have to, if they expect the top bracket of the KOs to be 1000+ masterpoints, and they're not allowing the mid-chart in events for which they'd have to advertise it. I haven't looked closely at the kinds of things I might run up against in a mid-chart event, but the few I do know about (multi, some artificial preemptive openings) don't seem all that difficult to handle. Frankly, I don't see why allowing the Mid-Chart ought to be such a big deal. I note that SOs can also allow the Superchart, if they want. That seems to require advertising in all cases (except for those NABC+ events where it's always allowed). I don't recall seeing any ads saying the SO had exercised this option. 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAXLYL2UW3au93vOEQK30ACdEzob+VD2cQE6344gYLsr8Oj5spAAn1ah 4FPoq+QM+1hj0lYOn8319jGh =WafU -----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 Nov 29 17:01:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT61ok13636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:01:50 +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 fAT61iH13620 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:01:44 +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 fAT5ssj19514; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:54:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011128213635.00a690b0@mail.fscv.net> References: <003501c17822$fed6dd80$da240b93@isi.com> <003101c1783b$aa954f40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011128213635.00a690b0@mail.fscv.net> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:52:20 -0500 To: Walt Flory From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Mid-Chart Conventions Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:41 PM -0500 11/28/01, Walt Flory wrote: >If someone played on a team with 1600 points, but wrote down 6000 >points what could be expected to happen? Would the TD's notice? >Would they care? Is there an ACBL policy covering this? > >Does anyone know? The general conditions of contest for knockouts say An ineligible player is disqualified. The ineligible player's team will be disqualified unless the Director-in-Charge determines that teammates were unknowledgeable about the deficiency of the disqualified member. Any team reduced to fewer than three original members due to disqualification of ineligible players is disqualified. Whether the TDs would notice is a question I can't answer. :-) The ACBL's general CoC are at http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/tinfo.htm#coc 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAXNr72UW3au93vOEQK6YQCeIUzfEbFUDAZ2jNPZSsUYybNZhcwAoOye 7NXcEjUnMk/ADcP4pDTdkRD4 =a8Fn -----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 Nov 29 17:12:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT6Bs715663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:11:54 +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 fAT6BlH15637 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:11:48 +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 fAT64pj25336; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:04:52 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:57:28 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:18 PM -0800 11/28/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >They >believed that were owed an Alert if North was treating 2H as >non-forcing. E/W asked about the 2H bid before the opening lead. North >said they hadn't really discussed it, but he thought it might be >non-forcing because they were playing Ogust. Seems to me that if North thought it was non-forcing, he should have alerted. If, OTOH, he had decided to pass it anyway, in spite of it being forcing, then there is no grounds for adjustment. 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAXQBb2UW3au93vOEQLLigCfSsizkh7OsE/l3hH++OxmxQ5jGQoAn3zy O2LEFURDhfRqFloZjw3gzegf =YFNU -----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 Nov 29 17:37:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT6bBs19806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:37:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAT6b6H19802 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:37:06 +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 fAT6UHw18202 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:30:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003d01c1789e$e3298700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:19:14 -0800 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" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >They > >believed that were owed an Alert if North was treating 2H as > >non-forcing. E/W asked about the 2H bid before the opening lead. North > >said they hadn't really discussed it, but he thought it might be > >non-forcing because they were playing Ogust. > > Seems to me that if North thought it was non-forcing, he should have > alerted. If, OTOH, he had decided to pass it anyway, in spite of it > being forcing, then there is no grounds for adjustment. > We aren't mindreaders, and North's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. What counts is his actual bidding. Going by that, he was playing 2H as non-forcing and should have Alerted it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 19:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT8aFE19855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:36:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT8a8H19851 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:36:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA21678; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:29:19 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Nov 29 09:26:43 2001 +0100 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 <01KB9S64B9ZO0028CL@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:28:38 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:28:35 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:28:37 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L24 To: "'Marvin L. French'" , 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 Marvin said: > > Is an honor card exposed during the auction UI to the culprit's > partner? That was the subject of some BLML discussion, as I noted when > deleting some postings that I did not have time to absorb. Here is > what a Las Vegas NABC AC had to say in the case of Appeal #1: > > "The first issue the Committee discussed was whether the exposed card > was unauthorized information to West. L24 avoids the issue for the > side that eventually declares. However, L16 states 'Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls and or plays...To base a call or play on other extraneous > information may be an infraction.' " > > The quote is accurate, including the lack of commas arround the word > "extraneous," which makes legal calls and plays extraneous > information. Grattan please note. Why not just omit the word "other"? > Lack of memory is no issue for computers anymore, but humans still suffer from it. We discussed this before and agreed that in less evoluted languages a comma is needed. In 'English' speaking countries as I understand it, comma's are not done. People are clever enough to understand it anyway (yes: 'anyway' is certainly the right word here). You still owe us the conclusion from this Committee. They considered it unauthorized I assume? Some of us stated that before '87 it certainly was authorized and that we have to assume it still is. Why so sure about that? There is more to say for the statement that we didn't need the addition to the laws about penalty cards saying that the possession of it is UI, wasn't necessary since we had L16 to cope with it. Then the real clarification there is that the knowledge that the penalty card has to be played at the first legal opportunity is authorized I. 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 Nov 29 19:52:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT8qA619872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:52:10 +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 fAT8q4H19868 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:52:05 +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 fAT8jBI00471; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:45:11 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAT8jAl11556; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:45:11 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:45:10 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Adam Beneschan cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-Reply-To: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > John Probst wrote: > > > >NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 > > > > > Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? > > You're kidding, right? North has UI from the misexplanation (failure > to alert), but passing by North is not a LA no matter how many hearts > South's pass shows. After 3 passes over 4H, the auction is over. Henk > > >West North East South > > > Pass Pass > > >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > > >Pass 4S All Pass ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 19:57:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT8v1M19884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:57:01 +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 fAT8utH19880 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:56:56 +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 fAT8o2I02143; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:50:02 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAT8o2n12132; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:50:02 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:50:01 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Marvin L. French" cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-Reply-To: <00d201c17864$7b841140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I don't think E/W did anything so egregious as to lose redress, > especially since they were denied the chance to employ their > countermeasures to transfer bids. I think that letting the opponents play 4S undoubled after a big club and a positive response IS pretty bad. > Besides, it doesn't matter how > terrible their actions were if there was no way to get a superior > result by bidding perfectly after the MI. 4S doubled down two > doesn't make up for the damage, after all. Yes, I agree, but then at least they tried to score a few points themselves. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 29 20:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAT96mK19901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 20:06:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from asterope.interia.pl (asterope.interia.pl [217.74.65.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAT96fH19897 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 20:06:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by asterope.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 1EC343C371B for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:59:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.36]) by asterope.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id B78993C37B0 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:59:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 1AA77371A6D for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:59:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 80B6B3719F6 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:59:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002101c178b3$2c37d460$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Subject: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:52:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi gang, I haven't been around for quite a long time so you have certainly been missing me. :-))) Here is an incident from a local tournament: MP, Love All AK9 J J964 A10976 Q75 643 87652 KQ3 AQ3 K1082 Q8 K43 J1082 A1094 75 J52 W N E S --- --- 1NT! p 2H p p p I was West. North led the AS and continued spades and I went one off. The 1NT opening was 10-12; it requires a pre-alert which didn't come. There was an alert of 1NT - neither North or South asked about its meaning during the first round of bidding. South did ask in the pass-out seat. The 2H response was a natural sign off. According to the Polish alerting regulations it should have been alerted (the default meaning is a spade transfer) and again - it wasn't. NS called the TD who decided that NS were damaged and ruled A+/A- to NS. A couple of questions: 1° Do you thing that NS were damaged? I am open to agree that they were although I normally have very little sympathy to players who don't ask about the meanings of alerted calls and then claim that they would have acted differently had they known what was going on. But as I said - I understand TD's decision. I also think that regardless of the ruling we should have been given a PP for our two quite serious infractions. 2° I tried to convince the TD after the tournament that the A+/A- ruling was illegal. Do you agree with me? 3° What is your ruling? Poland is in the L12C3 territory. Thanks in adavance for your replies, Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 00:25:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATDOda14604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:24:39 +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 (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fATDOXH14600 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:24:33 +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 OAA24640; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:17:36 +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 OAA19835; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:17:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129141108.00ab6720@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:18:42 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] L24 and set theory 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 09:28 29/11/2001 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Marvin said: > > > > Is an honor card exposed during the auction UI to the culprit's > > partner? That was the subject of some BLML discussion, as I noted when > > deleting some postings that I did not have time to absorb. Here is > > what a Las Vegas NABC AC had to say in the case of Appeal #1: > > > > "The first issue the Committee discussed was whether the exposed card > > was unauthorized information to West. L24 avoids the issue for the > > side that eventually declares. However, L16 states 'Players are > > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal > > calls and or plays...To base a call or play on other extraneous > > information may be an infraction.' " > > > > The quote is accurate, including the lack of commas arround the word > > "extraneous," which makes legal calls and plays extraneous > > information. Grattan please note. Why not just omit the word "other"? > > > >Lack of memory is no issue for computers anymore, but humans still suffer >from it. We discussed this before and agreed that in less evoluted languages >a comma is needed. In 'English' speaking countries as I understand it, >comma's are not done. People are clever enough to understand it anyway (yes: >'anyway' is certainly the right word here). AG : I hate to say this, but then those people are going against the rules of elementary matheatics, more precisely set theory. You might wish to say two things : a) there are two kinds of extraneous information : the one cited and the rest ; b) other information is extraneous iow : a) X = Y \union Z, or Y = X \difference Z b) X = Y You may not decide a) means b), else how do you intend to convey (in some other case) that you mean a) ? If somebody tells you, after you expressed an opinion, 'I've heard other good advice', how do you check whether one means your advice was good or bad ? 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 Nov 30 00:46:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATDj0614624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:45:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fATDisH14620 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:44:55 +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 OAA28160; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:38:00 +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 OAA07538; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:38:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:39:07 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- In-Reply-To: <002101c178b3$2c37d460$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> 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 fATDivH14621 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:52 29/11/2001 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > I haven't been around for quite a long time >so you have certainly been missing me. :-))) AG : fu zhi yue : always phrase thy questions so that a positive answer is what you'd like to hear. >Here is an incident from a local tournament: > >MP, Love All > > > > AK9 > J > J964 > A10976 > >Q75 643 >87652 KQ3 >AQ3 K1082 >Q8 K43 > > J1082 > A1094 > 75 > J52 > >W N E S >--- --- 1NT! p >2H p p p > > > I was West. > North led the AS and continued >spades and I went one off. > >The 1NT opening was 10-12; it requires a pre-alert >which didn't come. >There was an alert of 1NT - neither North or >South asked about its meaning during the first >round of bidding. South did ask in the pass-out seat. >The 2H response was a natural sign off. According >to the Polish alerting regulations it should have been >alerted (the default meaning is a spade transfer) >and again - it wasn't. AG : I will be on firm ground on this one. The regulations in Belgium are the same. If 1NT is alerted, but not pre-alerted, one could assume the range is not 15-17 or 16-18 or a subset of those (which are not alertable), but something else between 12 and 18 (including 15-18), which needs an alert, but no pre-aert. If that's enough to me, I don't need to ask. >NS called the TD who decided that NS were damaged and ruled A+/A- to NS. > >A couple of questions: AG : please note that in Poland, 'a couple' is made of three elements. All sorts of non-PC remarks spring to the mind :-P >1° Do you thing that NS were damaged? I am open > to agree that they were although I normally have very > little sympathy to players who don't ask about > the meanings of alerted calls and then claim that > they would have acted differently had they known > what was going on. But as I said - I understand > TD's decision. I also think that regardless of the > ruling we should have been given a PP for our two > quite serious infractions. AG : that's very marginal. Does N mean he (or partner) would have acted on 10-12 but not on 12-14 ? I don't think so. If he knew, at the moment of making his decision, that the 2H bid was natural, pretending they were damaged is not easy. BTA the director has every right to decide a close case in favor of the NOS. >2° I tried to convince the TD after the tournament that > the A+/A- ruling was illegal. Do you agree with me? AG : yes. >3° What is your ruling? Poland is in the L12C3 territory. AG : a double could well result in 2S or 2NT by NS, making 3. It could perhaps result in 3H by EW, three off. PBNF*L. So it's either +150 to both sides, or +150 and +300. Seeing the score sheet might help. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 01:15:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATEFQ314647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:15:26 +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 fATEFJH14643 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:15:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fATE8Th09002 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:08:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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: > Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? Are you seriously suggesting that an East who knew 4H was a transfer would pass? Indeed I'm pretty sure Barry would have worked it out from his own hand anyway. Nor could West afford to pass out 4H - even 10 off is no compensation for a missed game at this vulnerability. > >Board 22 > >Vulnerability: E-W > >Dealer East > > > > Fred Allenspach > > S- K10987643 > > H- > > D- 5 > > C- Q1096 > > > >Jill Levin Barry Rigal > >S- J5 S- AQ > >H- AK76 H- J109532 > >D- Q43 D- J96 > >C- AK74 C- J8 > > > > Janet Lee > > S- 2 > > H- Q84 > > D- AK10874 > > C- 532 > > > >The bidding: > > > >West North East South > > Pass Pass > >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass > >Pass 4S All Pass > > > >(1) Alerted; strong > >(2) Not Alerted; transfer > >(3) Alerted; card-showing 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 Nov 30 03:38:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATGbD022694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:37:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fATGb7H22676 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:37:08 +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 IAA23649; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:30:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200111291630.IAA23649@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:41:31 PST." Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:30:16 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >You're kidding, right? North has UI from the misexplanation (failure > >to alert), but passing by North is not a LA no matter how many hearts > >South's pass shows. > > John may or may not have been kidding, but after three passes North > will have no opportunity to correct to 4S. John suggested EW +400, > not EW +2100. Ooops, missed that. Sorry. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 04:19:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATHJg501610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:19:42 +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 fATHJaH01592 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:19:36 +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 fATHCkw13326 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:12:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005d01c178f8$5d7425c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:07:38 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." > Marvin said: > > > > Is an honor card exposed during the auction UI to the culprit's > > partner? That was the subject of some BLML discussion, as I noted when > > deleting some postings that I did not have time to absorb. Here is > > what a Las Vegas NABC AC had to say in the case of Appeal #1: Sorry, it was Appeal No. 2. > > > > "The first issue the Committee discussed was whether the exposed card > > was unauthorized information to West. L24 avoids the issue for the > > side that eventually declares. However, L16 states 'Players are > > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal > > calls and or plays...To base a call or play on other extraneous > > information may be an infraction.' " > > > > The quote is accurate, including the lack of commas arround the word > > "extraneous," which makes legal calls and plays extraneous > > information. Grattan please note. Why not just omit the word "other"? > > Or, Alice (retired teacher of English to foreign-born adults such as yourself) suggests, omit the word "extraneous." > > Lack of memory is no issue for computers anymore, but humans still suffer > from it. We discussed this before and agreed that in less evoluted languages > a comma is needed. In 'English' speaking countries as I understand it, > comma's are not done. People are clever enough to understand it anyway (yes: > 'anyway' is certainly the right word here). As long as you're criticizing my knowledge of English, I'll remark that the word "comma" does not require an apostrophe in its plural. :)) Yes, people do understand it, while smiling at the poor, actually incorrect, syntax. (Try that without commas!) > > You still owe us the conclusion from this Committee. They considered it > unauthorized I assume? Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear. However, the AC decided that UI from the exposed honor card did not play a part in the bidding. > Some of us stated that before '87 it certainly was authorized and that we > have to assume it still is. Why so sure about that? There is more to say for > the statement that we didn't need the addition to the laws about penalty > cards saying that the possession of it is UI, wasn't necessary since we had > L16 to cope with it. Then the real clarification there is that the knowledge > that the penalty card has to be played at the first legal opportunity is > authorized I. I remember the discussion about this, but not whether there was a consensus. My feeling was that L24's draconian requirement that exposer's partner must pass at next turn, and the lack of a reference to L16, implied that the exposed honor card is AI during the auction. Why require the pass if the card is UI that can't be utilized? Ergo, with the support of y'all, I would like to inform the ACBL AC and TD organizations that cards accidentally exposed during the auction are AI, not UI, during the auction. If a card so exposed has been made a penalty card by declarer at the end of the auction, then it is handled according to L50. Do I have it right? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 04:22:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATHMHh02173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:22:17 +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 fATHMBH02158 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:22:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fATHFKO07418 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:15:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:15 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 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: <003d01c1789e$e3298700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marvin L. French wrote: > > >They believed that were owed an Alert if North was treating 2H as > > >non-forcing. E/W asked about the 2H bid before the opening > > >lead. North said they hadn't really discussed it, but he thought it > > >might be non-forcing because they were playing Ogust. > > > > Seems to me that if North thought it was non-forcing, he should > > have alerted. If, OTOH, he had decided to pass it anyway, in spite of > > it being forcing, then there is no grounds for adjustment. > > > We aren't mindreaders, and North's uncorroborated testimony is > irrelevant. No it isn't. It is information that the TD takes into account along with any other evidence he finds. > What counts is his actual bidding. Going by that, he > was playing 2H as non-forcing and should have Alerted it. It doesn't matter how *he* was playing it for alert purposes, only how he had agreed (or not) to play it. The evidence from the CCs tends to indicate that the forcing/non-forcing nature of the bid had indeed not been discussed. Together with North/South's statements it looks like a reasonable ruling. Personally I would have asked how long the pair had been playing weak twos and Ogust together. The more they have played the more I would be inclined to rule MI. > N/S did have a disclosed agreement, whether they knew it or not, since > the CC documents partnership agreements. If that red box isn't > checked, the communicated agreement is that new suit responses to weak > twos are forcing. This can't be right. Surely pairs are not obliged to discuss/agree what bids mean in that sequence. The absence of a tick means only that a pair has not agreed (explicitly or implicitly) to play it as non-forcing. > When a partnership makes a call that does not > accord with their CC, the TD/AC should not listen to testimony that > there was no agreement. E/W were due an Alert. The TD/AC should listen to all testimony - that's part of their job. 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 Nov 30 04:23:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATHNrE02449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:23:53 +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 fATHNkH02430 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:23:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17783 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:16:51 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:00:20 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c0669a4.45aa.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.220 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 fATHNmH02438 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Karel - Replies inset .... ] >There was an alert of 1NT - neither North or >South asked about its meaning during the first >round of bidding. [Karel - 1NT was alerted correctly - the opps didn't ask - their problem.] >The 2H response was a natural sign off. According >to the Polish alerting regulations it should have been >alerted (the default meaning is a spade transfer) >and again - it wasn't. [Karel - this is a problem. North could double(TO) or bid 3C's but over a spade transfer is probably happy to pass. I'd say N/S were damaged by this non alert.] >NS called the TD who decided that NS were damaged and >ruled A+/A- to NS. [Karel - my understanding is that A+/A- is only assigned if no score could be reasonably arrived at. I think assigning a score of (eg) 110 to N/S for 3C's making or 120 for 2NT or even 110 for 2S's is very reasonable - so A+/A- is a bad decision.] >A couple of questions: > >1° Do you thing that NS were damaged? I am open > to agree that they were although I normally have very > little sympathy to players who don't ask about > the meanings of alerted calls and then claim that > they would have acted differently had they known > what was going on. [Karel - The non alert of the 2H bid in my opinion caused damage. The usual policy is that the TD takes the player (N in this case) away asks them would they have bid anything differently and proceeds from there. North has a fairly clearcut TO double or a defensible if somewhat aggressive 3C bid. Most routes will lead to a plus score for N/S of either 110 or 120] >2° I tried to convince the TD after the tournament that > the A+/A- ruling was illegal. Do you agree with me? [Karel - don't know about Illegal but bad - yes] >3° What is your ruling? Poland is in the L12C3 territory. [Karel - I have a very vague idea of how this rule works. Assign a percentage to the likely contracts (eg) 3C's 50%, 2NT 20%, 2S's 20%, Pass 10% and work out some adjusted score from there. I'll let the "Heads" tell us how it should be done. I'd be inclined to give 3C's making (+1 possible but -1 also) for N/S and E/W as the most "likely" result. ] -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 04:40:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATHeAt05881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:40:10 +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 fATHe4H05863 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:40:04 +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 fATHXFw21922 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:33:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008601c178fb$2f428ea0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:24:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner AG : a double could well result in 2S or 2NT by NS, making 3. It could perhaps result in 3H by EW, three off. PBNF*L. So it's either +150 to both sides, or +150 and +300. Seeing the score sheet might help. I believe it is generally recognized on BLML that one does not look to the score sheet for help in making a ruling. 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 Nov 30 06:03:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATJ2Vg07461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:02:31 +1100 (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 fATJ2PH07457 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:02:26 +1100 (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 fATItZH48821 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:55:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129135650.00ac0100@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, 29 Nov 2001 13:57:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies to Tim for the double post. >At 01:35 PM 11/16/01, twm wrote: > >>OK, careless language by me. But if the TD classes West as "technically >>competent and of extremely high ethics" he may still decide the HK >>discard >>to be irrational. I am sure that if the TD is *certain* that Wests of >>this "class" would always discard SA then it would be wrong to give two >>tricks to the defence. What I do know is that where I play there are >>only >>one or two people I wouldn't concede a trick to as defender if they were >>sure enough to assert a trick. >> >>Maybe the TD got it wrong, maybe he had more facts. In still don't know. > >One wonders what class of player that might be, that would miscount >the diamond suit but still "always" know to discard the SA. It seems >to me that for any player who would miscount one suit it would not be >irrational to miscount another. 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 Nov 30 06:05:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATJ5Wl07473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:05:32 +1100 (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 fATJ5RH07469 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:05:27 +1100 (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 fATIwai03181 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:58:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129135619.00b31e50@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, 29 Nov 2001 14:00:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:33 PM 11/20/01, Ed wrote: >I tend to agree - though I note that Romex is legal. And EHAA, I >think. :-) Those contain some "new ideas. Just FTR, there is nothing "new" about EHAA. EHAA as it was published in 1996 differs very little from EHAA as it was played in the early 1960s. 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 Nov 30 06:16:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATJGQ807496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:16:26 +1100 (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 fATJGKH07492 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:16:20 +1100 (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 fATJ9TK68647 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:09:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129140241.00ac4b40@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, 29 Nov 2001 14:11:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:48 AM 11/21/01, Ed wrote: >It occurred to me a couple of days ago to wonder in what percentage >of Sectional and Regional tournaments anything beyond the GCC is >allowed. I have a feeling it's not many - at least, none of the ads I >saw in the last two Bulletins mentioned it, as they're required to do >by ACBL regulation if they're allowing Mid-chart or Superchart. I >have it in the back of my mind to ask the ACBL about it, but I >haven't got a rountuit yet. :-) In ACBL District 6 (northern mid-Atlantic) where I live, all Sectional or Regional events (except for those on the "I/N" (novice) program) allow mid-chart methods as a matter of district-wide policy. This is also the case in District 7 (southern mid-Atlantic). AFAIK these are the only ACBL districts where this is true. 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 Nov 30 06:54:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATJsdk07515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:54:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fATJsYH07511 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:54:34 +1100 (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 fATJlhK71513 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:47:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129142051.00ac2a50@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, 29 Nov 2001 14:49:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards query In-Reply-To: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470BC3@PLATO> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:01 AM 11/21/01, Martin wrote: > - > AKxx > - > Axx > 3C major penalty card > A > Qxx > - > Qxx > >3NT you need 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Lead in Dummy >West probably has an outstanding diamond winner >EW play 3C as encouraging as a discard (which it was on an > earlier spade, then corrected) > >Purely as an alternative line of play to hearts 33 >am I entitled to play a club to the Q and if it loses >apply lead penalties to West? >ie. require a club return and fallback on the hearts 33 >without West being able to cash his diamond? No. Once E follows to the Cx from dummy with the C3, the penalty card has been disposed per L50D, so there is no further penalty, and W is free to lead as he wishes. Of course, given the situation as described, you might well choose to play that way anyhow, on the grounds that the CK in E is more likely than the 3-3 heart break -- unless you're pretty sure that E has at least 3 hearts, which would allow you to test hearts before leading a club to the Q. 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 Nov 30 07:23:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATKNJ107540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:23:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fATKNDH07536 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:23:13 +1100 (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 fATKGNK73860 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:16:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129145654.00ac2df0@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, 29 Nov 2001 15:18:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? In-Reply-To: <3bfbac22.549a.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:29 AM 11/21/01, karel wrote: >Ok so if there is some "reasonable" line which could lead to -2 (and >on the actual >case several such lines exist) then the claim is bad and the result is >-2. >Fair enough. > >Follow up question - > >say we change the south hand to > >S 643 >H A >D AQ >C A > >Now the only line on which south can lose 2 tricks is to play a >diamond at some >stage. Does this change the ruling ?? No. If W held the SJ7, which is what S believes, playing on diamonds would still be as good as anything else. 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 Nov 30 09:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATMwaY14713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:58:36 +1100 (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 fATMwUH14709 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:58:30 +1100 (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 fATMpcT23427 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:51:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129174752.00b415c0@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, 29 Nov 2001 17:53:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT In-Reply-To: <000001c17339$4bcf6e20$1656a8c0@pournaras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:37 AM 11/22/01, Takis wrote: >Declarer plays 3NT. In a particular suit (say spades) his LHO holds >KJxx. After the lead, declarer goes to dummy and plays the 10 of spades >from 10xx. RHO and declarer follow with a small card and the LHO starts >thinking. > >He discovers after a while that declarer may follow an alternate plan in >order to make his contract, unless he's persuaded to repeat the finesse. >So, after some pause he plays the King of Spades. > >Declarer naturally repeats the finesse against the *marked* Jack, which >looses to his LHO again. He calls the director claiming that he has been >damaged intentionally. > >What would you rule based on which law? No damage (and keep the deposit if LHO appeals). L73E: "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play..." Here the deception consisted solely of the play of the SK. There was clearly nothing deceptive about the hesitation; on the contrary, the hesitation made it more, not less, likely that the SK was a false card from a holding that included the SJ. 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 Nov 30 10:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATNRT314805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:27:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fATNRLH14796 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:27:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fATNJt610097; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:19:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129135619.00b31e50@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20011129135619.00b31e50@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:11:54 -0500 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:00 PM -0500 11/29/01, Eric Landau wrote: >Just FTR, there is nothing "new" about EHAA. EHAA as it was >published in 1996 differs very little from EHAA as it was played in >the early 1960s. I know. That's why I put "new" in quotes. My point was that the LOLs will consider some things in EHAA new, because they've never seen them before - in spite of having been around as long as EHAA has. :-) 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAbCvr2UW3au93vOEQIOjgCgpmKKg+jU2PoHfzBzWAVMHA0IzQ8An3k4 nEb3QdXmk9MoX7T1+S1gFuw4 =bFEd -----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 Nov 30 10:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fATNRV614806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:27:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 fATNROH14801 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:27:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fATNKW610795; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:20:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129140241.00ac4b40@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20011121110320.007af880@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20011129140241.00ac4b40@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:13:44 -0500 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] mike amos comments re Australian Natinals Q 2-10 Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:11 PM -0500 11/29/01, Eric Landau wrote: >In ACBL District 6 (northern mid-Atlantic) where I live, all >Sectional or Regional events (except for those on the "I/N" (novice) >program) allow mid-chart methods as a matter of district-wide >policy. This is also the case in District 7 (southern >mid-Atlantic). AFAIK these are the only ACBL districts where this >is true. Butch Campbell tells me that he thinks about 80% of regionals allow Mid-Chart in "top level" events, but that it is rare at sectionals. I got the impression he based that on *his* impression, rather than on hard data. 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 What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAbCxL2UW3au93vOEQJFGwCeKQxOo53j1LI6PqdSLUgqshi5BNAAnjRx lTriLDQ37qY8HwdjhzeihMfL =iCjA -----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 Nov 30 11:09:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU08hf16691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:08:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAU08bH16687 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:08:38 +1100 (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 fAU039j30971 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:03:09 -0900 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:59:00 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] On banning claims Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A nice easy (hehe) question: What is your reaction to a SO regulation forbidding defenders to claim? My first reaction was "no, wait a minute, all 3 players have the right to claim, you can't make a regulation in contravention of the laws." Then I went and read the laws again :) and found that the law book doesn't exactly say one way or the other as to when and by whom a claim is appropriate. Instead, it simply defines that one occurs whenever a player makes certain kinds of remarks or faces his hand. My second reaction is that telling defenders not to claim is an allowable regulation, but a pointless one. If a defender says he wants to claim anyway - he has! That is, you can ask people not to do it, but if they do, you still have to follow the standard claim procedure. The laws appear to be silent as to whether they establish a claim by defender as an acceptable and unpunishable action, or if they merely say what to do if one happens, leaving the door open for a SO to (for instance) impose an automatic penalty on all claims by defenders, so long as they still adjudicate the claims in accordane with the laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 11:52:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU0qGU16729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:52:16 +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 fAU0q9H16725 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:52:11 +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 AAA11021 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:45:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:43:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200111290115.RAA08427@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> >NABC Life Master Pairs, Second Qualifying Session, Nov. 18 >> > >> Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? > >You're kidding, right? North has UI from the misexplanation (failure >to alert), but passing by North is not a LA no matter how many hearts >South's pass shows. > er, excuse me, but how is N going to bid when his 4H is followed by 3 passes? I seem to recall that any further bids are cancelled. cheers john > -- Adam > >> >Board 22 >> >Vulnerability: E-W >> >Dealer East >> > >> > Fred Allenspach >> > S- K10987643 >> > H- >> > D- 5 >> > C- Q1096 >> > >> >Jill Levin Barry Rigal >> >S- J5 S- AQ >> >H- AK76 H- J109532 >> >D- Q43 D- J96 >> >C- AK74 C- J8 >> > >> > Janet Lee >> > S- 2 >> > H- Q84 >> > D- AK10874 >> > C- 532 >> > >> >The bidding: >> > >> >West North East South >> > Pass Pass >> >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass >> >Pass 4S All Pass >> > >> >(1) Alerted; strong >> >(2) Not Alerted; transfer >> >(3) Alerted; card-showing >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 30 11:55:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU0tat16744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:55:36 +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 fAU0tUH16740 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:55:31 +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 AAA11025 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:48:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:46:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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: >> Seems routine to rule 4H down 8 to me. EW +400, wtp? > >Are you seriously suggesting that an East who knew 4H was a transfer would >pass? Indeed I'm pretty sure Barry would have worked it out from his own >hand anyway. Nor could West afford to pass out 4H - even 10 off is no >compensation for a missed game at this vulnerability. > Both East and West are terrified of North bidding spades if either of them doubles. Suppose it goes 4H(a), "transfer to spades" West has a clear pass, and when it get to East are you *seriously* suggesting he thinks he can beat 4S? I think it *very likely* 4H down 8 is the most likely result. >> >Board 22 >> >Vulnerability: E-W >> >Dealer East >> > >> > Fred Allenspach >> > S- K10987643 >> > H- >> > D- 5 >> > C- Q1096 >> > >> >Jill Levin Barry Rigal >> >S- J5 S- AQ >> >H- AK76 H- J109532 >> >D- Q43 D- J96 >> >C- AK74 C- J8 >> > >> > Janet Lee >> > S- 2 >> > H- Q84 >> > D- AK10874 >> > C- 532 >> > >> >The bidding: >> > >> >West North East South >> > Pass Pass >> >1C(1) 4H(2) Dbl(3) Pass >> >Pass 4S All Pass >> > >> >(1) Alerted; strong >> >(2) Not Alerted; transfer >> >(3) Alerted; card-showing > >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 Fri Nov 30 12:00:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU10Ir16764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:00:18 +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 fAU10BH16760 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:00:12 +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 AAA11030 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:53:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:50:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$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 <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >Stratified Open Pairs, Nov 18, 1st session >Board 29 >Vulnerability: Both >Dealer: North > > S- 74 > H- 6 > D- AJ10732 > C- J632 > >S- A9852 S- K103 >H- 872 H- KJ109 >D- Q985 D- K64 >C- A C- 1095 > > S- QJ6 > H- AQ543 > D- > C- KQ874 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > 2D Pass 2H (1) >All Pass > >(1) Not Alerted; CC not marked as non-forcing > large snip > >I held the West hand at another table, and the same situation arose. >When the TD took me away from the table for questioning (ugh!) I said >I would have bid 2S had 2H been Alerted as non-forcing. This TD >sensibly later ruled result stands, +110 for N/S. It's interesting >that two TDs in the same event ruled oppositely, isn't it? I did not >appeal, thank goodness, when I saw that a bid of 2S would have led to >an inferior result, not a better result. 2S would not have bought the >contract, 3C would have (if not, 3S surely would be doubled and down >200), so no damage. > >N/S just get a mild lecture about the need to have explicit agreements >about common auctions following their conventional or preemptive bids, >and to mark their CC accordingly. > Can I mark my cc "No agreement" please, because I don't have one, and I don't want one. cheers 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/ -- 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 Nov 30 14:40:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU3dmC19816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:39:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAU3dgH19812 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:39:42 +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 fAU3Wqw01189 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:32:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:18:50 -0800 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" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Stratified Open Pairs, Nov 18, 1st session > >Board 29 > >Vulnerability: Both > >Dealer: North > > > > S- 74 > > H- 6 > > D- AJ10732 > > C- J632 > > > >S- A9852 S- K103 > >H- 872 H- KJ109 > >D- Q985 D- K64 > >C- A C- 1095 > > > > S- QJ6 > > H- AQ543 > > D- > > C- KQ874 > > > >The bidding: > > > >West North East South > > 2D Pass 2H (1) > >All Pass > > > >(1) Not Alerted; CC not marked as non-forcing > > > large snip > > > >I held the West hand at another table, and the same situation arose. > >When the TD took me away from the table for questioning (ugh!) I said > >I would have bid 2S had 2H been Alerted as non-forcing. This TD > >sensibly later ruled result stands, +110 for N/S. It's interesting > >that two TDs in the same event ruled oppositely, isn't it? I did not > >appeal, thank goodness, when I saw that a bid of 2S would have led to > >an inferior result, not a better result. 2S would not have bought the > >contract, 3C would have (if not, 3S surely would be doubled and down > >200), so no damage. > > > >N/S just get a mild lecture about the need to have explicit agreements > >about common auctions following their conventional or preemptive bids, > >and to mark their CC accordingly. > > > Can I mark my cc "No agreement" please, because I don't have one, and I > don't want one. No. With no agreement, a new suit response is not forcing. Check the box saying that, and Alert a response. Opponents have the right to know whether a response can be passed or not. Just because non-forcing is checked doesn't mean you can't bid a new suit with a strong hand, or that opener can't rebid. "Non-forcing" is not equivalent to "Signoff." 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 Nov 30 15:05:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU44rk22301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:04:53 +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 fAU44kH22272 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:04:47 +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 DAA11437 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:58:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:54:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <014501c1794e$3899d460$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 <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes big snip >> > >> >N/S just get a mild lecture about the need to have explicit >agreements >> >about common auctions following their conventional or >preemptive bids, >> >and to mark their CC accordingly. >> > >> Can I mark my cc "No agreement" please, because I don't have >one, and I >> don't want one. > >No. With no agreement, a new suit response is not forcing. Check >the box saying that, and Alert a response. Opponents have the >right to know whether a response can be passed or not. Just >because non-forcing is checked doesn't mean you can't bid a new >suit with a strong hand, or that opener can't rebid. "Non-forcing" >is not equivalent to "Signoff." > yep, that makes sense. 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/ -- 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 Nov 30 19:27:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU8R1R18306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:27:01 +1100 (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 fAU8QsH18302 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:26:55 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA13047; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:20:03 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 30 09:17:27 2001 +0100 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 <01KBB64T9C0E0029PR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:14 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:11 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:13 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L24 To: "'Marvin L. French'" , 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 > > Marvin reacted: > As long as you're criticizing my knowledge of English, I'll remark > that the word "comma" does not require an apostrophe in its > plural. :)) I would like to be able to criticize the English about their knowledge of English, but I can't and didn't. Then it is still possible to establish some peculiarities. > > Yes, people do understand it, while smiling at the poor, actually > incorrect, syntax. (Try that without commas!) > > > > You still owe us the conclusion from this Committee. They > considered it > > unauthorized I assume? > > Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear. However, the AC decided that > UI from the exposed honor card did not play a part in the bidding. > > > Some of us stated that before '87 it certainly was authorized > and that we > > have to assume it still is. Why so sure about that? There is > more to say for > > the statement that we didn't need the addition to the laws about > penalty cards saying that the possession of it is UI, wasn't necessary > since we had L16 to cope with it. Then the real clarification there is that > the knowledge that the penalty card has to be played at the first legal > opportunity is authorized I. > > I remember the discussion about this, but not whether there was a > consensus. My feeling was that L24's draconian requirement that > exposer's partner must pass at next turn, and the lack of a > reference to L16, implied that the exposed honor card is AI during > the auction. Why require the pass if the card is UI that can't be > utilized? > > Ergo, with the support of y'all, You are kidding, us all? Not mine, I consider it consistent with the change in the revoke law to deem this UI. And since the laws do allow that approach, in fact L16 tells us to do so, that is how I would deal with it. It is not difficult to compose a hand and an auction in which the apparent knowledge of the spade ace in partners hand gives a huge advantage in reaching the right contract. That is not what the laws should result in, is it? ton I would like to inform the ACBL > AC and TD organizations that cards accidentally exposed during the > auction are AI, not UI, during the auction. If a card so exposed > has been made a penalty card by declarer at the end of the > auction, then it is handled according to L50. > > Do I have it right? You do have the right. ton > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 19:37:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU8b2m18325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:37:02 +1100 (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 fAU8auH18321 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:36:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA26924; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:30:05 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 30 09:27:29 2001 +0100 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 <01KBB6H43NT60028JE@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:29:09 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:29:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:29:06 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] On banning claims To: "'Gordon Bower'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List 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 > > A nice easy (hehe) question: > > What is your reaction to a SO regulation forbidding defenders > to claim? > > My first reaction was "no, wait a minute, all 3 players have > the right to > claim, you can't make a regulation in contravention of the > laws." Then I > went and read the laws again :) and found that the law book doesn't > exactly say one way or the other as to when and by whom a claim is > appropriate. Instead, it simply defines that one occurs > whenever a player > makes certain kinds of remarks or faces his hand. > > My second reaction is that telling defenders not to claim is > an allowable > regulation, but a pointless one. If a defender says he wants to claim > anyway - he has! That is, you can ask people not to do it, > but if they do, > you still have to follow the standard claim procedure. > > The laws appear to be silent as to whether they establish a claim by > defender as an acceptable and unpunishable action, or if they > merely say > what to do if one happens, leaving the door open for a SO to (for > instance) impose an automatic penalty on all claims by > defenders, so long > as they still adjudicate the claims in accordane with the laws. Interesting question. I am afraid that SO's do have this possibility. But why restrict it to the defenders then? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 30 20:15:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAU9FgJ18355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:15:42 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAU9FbH18351 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:15:37 +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 KAA03744; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:05:37 +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 KAA23658; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:08:41 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130100541.00aba6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:09:51 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- In-Reply-To: <008601c178fb$2f428ea0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@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 09:24 29/11/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner > >AG : a double could well result in 2S or 2NT by NS, making 3. It >could >perhaps result in 3H by EW, three off. PBNF*L. So it's either +150 >to both >sides, or +150 and +300. Seeing the score sheet might help. > >I believe it is generally recognized on BLML that one does not >look to the score sheet for help in making a ruling. Sorry, Marv, but I am not good enough at card play technique to assess the number of tricks makable in a given denomination. If I see that 2 pairs made 2S= and two made 2S+1, I'll give 2S+1. Since other contributors hinted that 9 tricks are not makable in spades, while I thought they were, we need firmer ground. The AC will of course include at least one strong player, but the TD usually has to decide alone in fisrt instance. 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 Nov 30 23:07:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUC6Kw25198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUC67H25185 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAUBxEX14788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59:14 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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: > Both East and West are terrified of North bidding spades if either of > them doubles. Suppose it goes 4H(a), "transfer to spades" West has a > clear pass, and when it get to East are you *seriously* suggesting he > thinks he can beat 4S? I think your compass is broken. But if the bidding does go 4H(a) to East then he "knows" South will bid 4S and has pretty much zero expectation of defending 4H. Now is the time to double to show hearts. If it manages to go 4H(a) P P then West will place South with short spades and long hearts and hope to beat any contract a few tricks - after all on this auction his partner has probably denied hearts, not denied values. I could see an auction like: West North East South Pass Pass 1Ca 4Ha Dbl Pass Pass 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H Pass Pass Dbl 1 - Surely Forcing. And that's the key. Why wasn't pass forcing on the actual sequence? Presumably because a double of a natural 4H shows a different type of hand. Assume the mantle of TD for a moment and offer West a chance to change her call. She asks "Am I supposed to assume that my partner's double was of a transfer or of a natural bid?". It is not the MI itself that has actually caused the problem it is the knowledge that partner didn't receive an alert of 4H that creates ambiguity. Perhaps that is what the committee meant when they said "The Committee could not find a legal basis for protecting pairs whose methods depend on the proper Alerts by the opponents." West did not have any MI when she had to make the critical decision about changing her call. 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 Fri Nov 30 23:07:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUC6KI25200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUC6AH25189 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAUBxIX14838 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59:18 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims 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: - siegmund@mosquitonet.com asked: > What is your reaction to a SO regulation forbidding defenders to claim? Is this SO also prepared to be *really* tough on those declarers who play out to the last trick even with no hope of achieving anything? If not I fear for the blood pressure of the defenders. Of course if the SO is having a "newcomers" day and wants a specific regulation for it then I don't see a real 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 Nov 30 23:07:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUC6K225199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUC68H25186 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:06:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fAUBxGg14814 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129135650.00ac0100@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > Apologies to Tim for the double post. No problem, you get the reply twice too:-) > > > >>OK, careless language by me. But if the TD classes West as > "technically > >>competent and of extremely high ethics" he may still decide the HK > >>discard > >>to be irrational. I am sure that if the TD is *certain* that Wests of > >>this "class" would always discard SA then it would be wrong to give > two > >>tricks to the defence. What I do know is that where I play there are > >>only one or two people I wouldn't concede a trick to as defender if > >>they were sure enough to assert a trick. > >> > >>Maybe the TD got it wrong, maybe he had more facts. I still don't > know. > > > >One wonders what class of player that might be, that would miscount > >the diamond suit but still "always" know to discard the SA. It seems > >to me that for any player who would miscount one suit it would not be > >irrational to miscount another. Generally yes. But if declarer said to me "If I miscounted diamonds it must be because my LHO pitched a heart on the second round, it is a bit dark in this corner but I'm sure I would have noticed black on red - at least that's the assumption I would have made and that would only be compatible with his having an initial holding of 4S." Assume LHO did discard a heart and it is dark, and that you know this very good player is the class that would rather kill himself than lie at the bridge table. As TD I could see myself being absolutely convinced that declarer would have discarded the spade. In that specific circumstance am I *still* required by law to award both tricks to the defence? 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/