From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 00:37:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUDb9825287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 00:37:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUDb3H25283 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 00:37:04 +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 fAUDUBi87059 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:30:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011130082352.00a96250@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, 30 Nov 2001 08:32:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? In-Reply-To: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:36 PM 11/23/01, David wrote: >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. Offhand, there appears to be no definitive reason from the bidding and play so far why the end position couldn't be N: -/-/92/KQ7; S: 98/-/Q6/9, so I'm inclined to rule one trick to the defense (L70E). Perhaps a detailed analysis would reveal why it would be appropriate for W to play for the actual holdings, but, if so, some indication of that analysis should have been included in the claim statement. I will, of course, give W a chance to try to convince me that he really knew the position all along (as opposed to merely having guessed/planned to play for it), but I doubt that he's going to convince me. The argument that N would not have covered the D7 unless he held the DQJ won't be enough to do it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 02:40:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUFdxe25368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:39:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin8.bigpond.com (mailin8.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUFdtH25364 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:39:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mailin8.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GNME6600.4VX for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 01:39:42 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.234]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8311/17604638); 01 Dec 2001 01:32:58 Message-ID: <013d01c179b4$108f8580$ead636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Vital Reisinger Appeal (highly unofficial version) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:31:21 +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 Copied from rgb by Peter Gill, in case anyone is interested. -----Original Message----- From: Barry Rigal To Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge Date: Saturday, 1 December 2001 1:45 Subject: Re: Reisinger Appeal (highly unofficial version) This is not the official write up of the case --merely my first thoughts. I have seen the official version (which was derived from my write-up here) but that unfortunately has suit symbols and other items that do not translate well to this format. Rather than play around with that version I have chosen to amend my first draft of the write-up to make it into more of a conversation piece rather than a formal essay, and to let you see it on the grounds that the differences are not material, I hope. However please bear in mind that as I say this is not the version that will appear in print -- so blame me if there are any absurdities in the text here. Barry Rigal On Tuesday Evening having come back from a late dinner (there was an abortive Appeal to serve on at 6.30) it was time to join the Vugraph Commentary team at board 16 of the second set of the Reisinger. All went well, but as the Vugraph of the Reisinger comes to an end, and you clamber down off the stage, the last thing anyone wants to see is Alan Le Bendig coming towards you and telling you that you are needed for an appeal. Half an hour later you are seated in the Appeals Room in charge of the highest powered committee you have served on, (Billy Pollack, Kit Woolsey, Michael Huston and Eric Greco) and when you see teams one and two in the event come through the door you know you are in for a long night. Here are the facts. Remember North and East are on the same sides of a screen, South and West on the other side. Note the board number -- it relates to a deal on Vugraph you did not see, so spectators may have observed more than I did! Board 14 . Dealer East None Vul. A K J 7 6 5 K 8 4 3 Q J 9 10 9 3 Q 4 2 J 7 5 4 A 9 8 6 3 2 K 9 2 10 K 8 6 10 5 3 8 Q 10 A Q J 7 6 5 A 7 4 2 West North East South Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 1NT(3) Pass 2C(4) Pass 2D(5) Pass 2H(6) Pass 3D(7) Pass 3S Pass 3NT All Pass (1) Normally diamonds, occasionally strong balanced (2) 4+ Spades (3) 4+ Clubs (5+ diamonds guaranteed) (4) Relay (5) 11-15 any (6) akin to 4th suit (7) Explained by South to West as 6+D, while when North commented on South's bidding he said either five, or five or more diamonds. No agreement as to the facts by North and East (nor as to the timing of East's questions). West led the H4, to the HK and East ducked, playing an encouraging nine. Declarer finessed the diamond. West won and returned the HJ, assuming that East knew that West could only have one remaining heart from the auction and play. East ducked the heart, assuming declarer had e.g. x/Q10x/AQJxx/Axxx. 3NT made nine tricks. The Director was called and established that South had explained in writing to West that the bid showed six diamonds, while North and East had merely conversed. The TD ruled no damage and the score stood. E/W appealed. The appeal established the following facts. South had explained what he had, not what the system promised. South said when asked that with x/10xx/AKJxx/Axxx he would have rebid 3D over 2H. North had correctly explained to East what the system showed. Accordingly there were different explanations, and Misinformation had arisen. The Committee had sympathy with South for trying to be helpful to West, but the fact remained that his explanation had caused the defensive problems. Had West been told that South might have only five diamonds he would indubitably have played a low heart at Trick Three and the contract would have been set two tricks. Had both players been told that the bid showed six diamonds East would not have ducked the second heart. Either way it was relatively clear that N/S deserved no better than -100 in 3NT. The Committee now had to assess the defence by E/W. West's decision to play the HJ in what to him was a position where it was overwhelmingly likely that declarer had the bare HA left was not considered culpable. A low heart could not block the suit and was thus just a sounder play, but West assumed he and his partner both knew exactly what was going on. East was then faced with a problem that he had to solve. Either partner had made the 'wrong' play from a remaining holding of HJxx and his opponents bidding made complete sense, or his partner had made the right play from a remaining HJx and the opponents had bid strangely and falsecarded at trick one. (That is to say: South with e.g. x/Q10x/AQJxx/Axxx had not rebid 2NT over 2H, but had falsecarded with the H10 when this might have been a card that he could not afford.) As to the falsecard: the Committee were able to infer from a comment by North that declarer might have been able to work out from the tempo to trick one that East had the HA, but in any event East was entitled to play South (a current World Champion) to play false-cards as and when appropriate. From East's perspective South might have known that he was likely to be finessing into the safe hand in any event. For example, if the diamond finesse held declarer would cross to the SA and finesse clubs next with the same plan of keeping East off lead. >As to South's rebid, the Committee had some sympathy with East for being unsure what South would have chosen to do on the auction as presented. While East would know what the auction 1D-1S-2C-2H meant, and should be expected to work out that with HQ10x he would rebid 2NT, there was not the same onus on him to work out the nuances of a double-transfer auction. While in the Committee Room the two auctions could be seen on close inspection to be almost equivalent, this would have been considerably more difficult to work out without detailed reading of the voluminous system file. East had no such obligation, though he did have an obligation to continue playing bridge. But East's decision to trust his partner and not the opponents at this level of the game was in the final analysis a reasonable one. The Committee concluded that the Misinformation had caused the damage, and that while neither East nor West had defended perfectly in practice, their plays in abstract were not sufficiently illogical to break the chain between infraction and damage. They therefore adjusted the score for both sides to 3NT down two, +100 to E/W. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 1 03:12:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUGCHO25431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:12:17 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fAUGCAH25427 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:12:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-5-138.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.5.138] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169q7s-0001lI-00; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:02:56 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c179b8$9e17fc80$8a05e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Gordon Bower'" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:03:09 -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: "'Gordon Bower'" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 30 November 2001 08:29 Subject: RE: [BLML] On banning claims > > > > > 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. > > > Interesting question. I am afraid that SO's do have this > possibility. But why restrict it to the defenders then? > > ton > -- +=+ I do not disagree with this, although the laws also contain a strong hint that it may be discourteous not to curtail play when you can if by not doing so you create discomfort for others at the table. Of course, if a claim *is* made the Director cannot refuse to deal with it as the laws provide, no matter what the regulation. And I cannot help feeling that the lawmakers did intend that claims shgould happen, although they forgot to say 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 Sat Dec 1 03:26:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUGQFo25447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:26:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fAUGQAH25443 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:26:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-51-135.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.51.135] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169qLQ-0005rj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:16:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c179ba$93046020$8733e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Virus Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:12:17 -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; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:50:31 +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 IAA17465; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200111301643.IAA17465@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Virus In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:12:17 GMT." <000201c179ba$93046020$8733e150@pacific> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:37 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Others perceive us differently from the > way we see ouselves." [Howard Wells] > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > +=+ I have received half a dozen messages > with 'Re;' in the subject box and nothing else. > As is my wont I have deleted these without > looking at them, and from the delete bin, too. > I do not look at any attachments unless I > receive in parallel I receive a message to > say what they are. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I wonder if these are the same as what I got yesterday. I got a couple mail messages that looked like they were from BLML'ers: From: "Ben Schelen" <_B.Schelen@IAE.NL> From: "Rusty Court" <_ruscourt@iafrica.com> The leading underscore in the return address looks very suspicious to me. The subject line on both was Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas The rest of the mail message was an attachment that identified itself as an audio/x-wav file; one was named HUMOR.MP3.scr and the other was README.MP3.scr. The attachment appeared to be a Windows executable. (I read my mail under Linux, so there was no way for the executable to harm my system; naturally, I have *not* tried copying the executable to a Windows system and executing it.) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 04:00:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUH0VI25482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:00:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUH0QH25478 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:00:26 +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 fAUGrZw16364 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:53:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:36 -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." > Gordon Bower wrote: > > 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? > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after suitable warning) for violations. 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 Dec 1 04:22:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHMAE25499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:22:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUHM5H25495 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:22:05 +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 JAA17950; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:15:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:36 PST." <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:15:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > suitable warning) for violations. Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: -- -- -- QJTxx -- xx -- AKx that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? -- 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 Dec 1 04:30:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHUXS25512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:30:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUHUSH25508 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:30:28 +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 fAUHNbw01415 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:23:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003601c179c3$a71f1420$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011130082352.00a96250@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:16 -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: "Eric Landau" > David wrote: > > >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. > > Offhand, there appears to be no definitive reason from the bidding and > play so far why the end position couldn't be N: -/-/92/KQ7; S: > 98/-/Q6/9, so I'm inclined to rule one trick to the defense > (L70E). Perhaps a detailed analysis would reveal why it would be > appropriate for W to play for the actual holdings, but, if so, some > indication of that analysis should have been included in the claim > statement. I will, of course, give W a chance to try to convince me > that he really knew the position all along (as opposed to merely having > guessed/planned to play for it), but I doubt that he's going to > convince me. The argument that N would not have covered the D7 unless > he held the DQJ won't be enough to do it. > How much simpler it was pre-1997, when a diamond finesse was forbidden. The new clause ("or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational") causes headaches for TDs/ACs, especially if the "class of player" must be taken into account. This claim by an apparent expert must be given careful consideration, while mine would be laughed at. I don't like that elitist approach to bridge rulings. Eric's analysis looks perfect to me. I wish we had TDs like him in this part of the country. 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 Dec 1 04:31:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHVsR25524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:31:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUHVmH25520 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23607 invoked by uid 50005); 30 Nov 2001 17:24:55 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4172. . Clean. Processed in 0.122459 secs); 30 Nov 2001 17:24:55 -0000 Received: from wellscs.msns.man.ptd.net (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.82.228]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 30 Nov 2001 17:24:55 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:25:01 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.com> References: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:36 -0800, Marvin French wrote: >I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting >that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, >to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this >would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. >Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after >suitable warning) for violations. > Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious cross-ruff. 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 Sat Dec 1 04:41:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHeXK26655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bruce.ecats.co.uk ([194.205.153.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUHeRH26625 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:40:27 +1100 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Virus Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:30:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC03FABB@bruce.ecats.co.uk> content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [BLML] Virus Thread-Index: AcF5wvv3nERaYRXjQzCwONiD8xonyQAAT8mg From: "anna" To: "Adam Beneschan" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fAUHeTH26635 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk These were viruses. Please, all of you, make sure that you have installed the patch for Internet Explorer 5 and 5.01 which plugs the security hole - if you don't do this you may find that you get the virus just by looking at the email or seeing it in a preview pane. You can download and install the patch from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/q290108/default.a sp There are a lot of viruses doing the rounds at the moment, and I suggest you all make sure you have a good anti virus software installed and ensure that you keep it updated, preferably every day. I use F-secure, from www.datafellows.com and (touch wood) it has proved excellent. And our servers update it every 20 minutes!! But daily will probably do anna -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@irvine.com] Sent: 30 November 2001 16:44 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Virus > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Others perceive us differently from the > way we see ouselves." [Howard Wells] > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > +=+ I have received half a dozen messages > with 'Re;' in the subject box and nothing else. > As is my wont I have deleted these without > looking at them, and from the delete bin, too. > I do not look at any attachments unless I > receive in parallel I receive a message to > say what they are. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I wonder if these are the same as what I got yesterday. I got a couple mail messages that looked like they were from BLML'ers: From: "Ben Schelen" <_B.Schelen@IAE.NL> From: "Rusty Court" <_ruscourt@iafrica.com> The leading underscore in the return address looks very suspicious to me. The subject line on both was Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas The rest of the mail message was an attachment that identified itself as an audio/x-wav file; one was named HUMOR.MP3.scr and the other was README.MP3.scr. The attachment appeared to be a Windows executable. (I read my mail under Linux, so there was no way for the executable to harm my system; naturally, I have *not* tried copying the executable to a Windows system and executing it.) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 1 04:59:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHwin29956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:58:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUHwcH29941 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAUHpgd16014 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:51:42 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200111301751.fAUHpgd16014@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:51:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Grattan Endicott" at Nov 30, 2001 04:03:09 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:03:09 -0000 > > Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > Sent: 30 November 2001 08:29 > Subject: RE: [BLML] On banning claims > > > > 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. > > > > > > Interesting question. I am afraid that SO's do have this > > possibility. But why restrict it to the defenders then? > > > > ton > > I do not disagree with this, although the > laws also contain a strong hint that it may be > discourteous not to curtail play when you can > if by not doing so you create discomfort for > others at the table. > Of course, if a claim *is* made the Director > cannot refuse to deal with it as the laws provide, > no matter what the regulation. And I cannot help > feeling that the lawmakers did intend that claims > shgould happen, although they forgot to say so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > TY: I agree with Grattan on this one. The law book is very clear when it designates "a contestant" and "a player" for who may claim or concede tricks. Since other sections clearly use "declarer" or "defender", it is obvious that the intent was to allow either declarer or either defender to claim. In addition, referring to L74B4, it is improper to prolong play unnecessarily the section again uses the term "player" that encompasses either defender or declarer). I personally think the intent is clear. I think it is a bad idea to regulate the game so that SO's could forbid claims by defenders. In many instances (particularly at the high levels and the low levels of bridge), the game already takes fairly long. Claims and concessions help to speed things up. Also, when a pair is either under a warning or in danger of a penalty for slow play, claims and concessions help them to catch up. Are you trying to suggest that a table that has played several minutes after the end of a round should be forced to play out an obvious hand simply because the declarer has not conceded tricks and the defenders are not allowed to claim? A pair that achieves a slow play penalty because the defenders at their table (whether themselves or the opponents) were not allowed to claim, have just cause to be aggrieved. If one defender knows the status of the tricks, but the other defender still has to concentrate to work out discards and/or signalling, for no reason, is pointless. And it is improper for an SO to impose and try to enforce such a bad rule. Rules like that are counterproductive when assigned in a vacuum and not allowed to have the judgement of the director or participants to correct oversights and generalities. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 04:59:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUHx9v00038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:59:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUHx2H00023 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:59:02 +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 SAA04929; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:52:04 +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 SAA24161; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:52:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130184008.009d11d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:53:16 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-Reply-To: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:43 30/11/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting >that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, >to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this >would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. >Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after >suitable warning) for violations. AG : IBTD. Claims are made to shorten the duration of the play, spare players' nerves, and allow them to concentrate on *interesting* deals. The most useful case is when a player trances over what to discard (or return). Such claims will often be : a) conditional : "doing the spades finesse ; if it works plus 1, else just made" b) clarified as taking tricks in both hands : "making the rest on a crossruff" c) accompanied by a concession : "okay, you make your master trump whenever you want" Those claims are : a) more frequent b) more helpful towards the three aims mentioned above (a claim of all high tricks in my hand saves several seconds ; a claim of the types above may spare several minutes) If I may not claim in one of the three modes mentioned, I could face an unpleasant choice between getting a PP for wrong claim and getting a PP for late finish. The latter case will be five times more frequent. Errors made under time pressure will be ten times more frequent. Nature (and the Lawmakers) didn't intend it so. If, OTOH, you want to be more severe against faulty claims, please be. I'm only concerned in preserving *clever* claims. Regads, 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 Dec 1 05:01:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUI16i00373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:01:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUI0xH00361 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:01:00 +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 RAA13036 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:53:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:49:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Fwd: 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: <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? > probably yes. I tend to think of David Burn and what he would say/do when i'm trying to picture what an expert would do. Despite all this, sometimes experts make a mistake. Ian, feel free to take a free swing at David here :) >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 05:03:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUI3pw00785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:03:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUI3iH00762 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:03:45 +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 RAA13042 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:57:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:52:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims References: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.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 <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.com>, Brian Meadows writes >On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:36 -0800, Marvin French wrote: > > > >>I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting >>that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, >>to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this >>would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. >>Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after >>suitable warning) for violations. >> absolutely dreadful idea, adjudicating a bum claim is no real problem. Claims are, and always will be, part of the way bridge is *normally* played, and such a regulation runs counter to intuition. To award a PP to someone who does what is normal is *ludicrous*. > >Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious >cross-ruff. > >Brian. > -- 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 Dec 1 05:13:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUID4t02266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:13:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUICvH02239 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:12:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAUI5ws16578 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:05:58 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200111301805.fAUI5ws16578@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:05:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Nov 30, 2001 03:54:45 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:54:45 +0000 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 > > 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. > > > > > > [John] > > >Can I mark my cc "No agreement" please, because I don't have one, > > >and I don't want one. > > > > [Marv] > >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." > > [John] > yep, that makes sense. john TY: Personally, although it is fine for an infrequent partnership to have no agreements in some situations, but it is inappropriate for an experienced partnership to have no agreements about common situations (and new suits over preemptive bids is a common situation). An experienced partnership saying they have no agreement in a common situation is really deceptive. L75B does imply that that partnership experience is relevent as an established implicit agreement (the section on habitual violations creating implicit agreements). By partnership experience, an partner in an experienced partnership has more information that the opponents about the likely meaning of a bid and by full disclosure requirements should convey that information to the opponents. In response to John's comment of marking "No agreement" because he doesn't have one and doesn't want one, that works for the first two or three times you play with this partner, but after that, you have at least an implicit agreement just from experience of the situation coming up. Once the bid has come up a few times, you have the experience to know if partner will take the bid as forcing or non- forcing and then you have an obligation to tell the opponents. Not to do so, is very improper. I've run across many an experienced partnership that will say they have no agreements on common situations and I think it is improper and they should be warned about not having an agreement since they at least have implicit information about an agreement. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 05:21:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUIKxx03700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:20:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUIKrH03685 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAUIDvU16819 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:13:57 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200111301813.fAUIDvU16819@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:13:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Nov 30, 2001 05:52:33 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:52:33 +0000 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > > > >[Marv, I think] > > >I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > > >that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > > >to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > >would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > > >Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > >suitable warning) for violations. > > > > > [John] > absolutely dreadful idea, adjudicating a bum claim is no real problem. > Claims are, and always will be, part of the way bridge is *normally* > played, and such a regulation runs counter to intuition. To award a PP > to someone who does what is normal is *ludicrous*. > > > >[Brian] > >Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious > >cross-ruff. > > Another side problem with the claim rule is that it also discourages infrequent players from playing in our games. Money bridge or rubber bridge players are used to claiming when they can and if they come into our games and get penalties for claiming, I think it is very wrong. This is akin to something I was talking about with Eric Landau just yesterday; which is that they should not make a modification to the alert procedure that requires old-fashioned standard bids to be alertable (like low-level penalty doubles) which means that an infrequent player in the game could get a penalty for coming into the game and not alerting correctly for a "standard" bid and getting a penalty. It also discourges duplicate players that have been out of the game for several years from coming back when they get bitten by these types of arbitrary rules. And when (IMHO) the consequences of a rule are worse than the benefits, I think that it is arbitrary to impose such a rule. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 05:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUIPmw04568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:25:48 +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 fAUIPgH04541 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:25:42 +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 fAUIIpw08600 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:18:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:17:27 -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 wrote: > > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > suitable warning) for violations. > > Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting > that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: > > -- > -- > -- > QJTxx > > -- > xx > -- > AKx > > that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? > No PP for that, I'm sure. Lay down the AK of clubs, then the small club, and say "Dummy's good." The purpose of the regulation rule is to avoid those situations in which the opposition has to check back and forth between the two hands, counting tricks and looking for possible blockage. Also, to avoid those situations in which inexperienced opponents are reluctant to contest a claim even if they don't see its validity. To accomplish this, one needs a simple rule that may look silly at times. If a player conforms to its intent but not to its literal requirement, no problem and no PP. Another suggestion with some support is to let opponents say, "Please let's play it out," which can be too silly at times. I recall the occasion when the despicable Ivan Erdos claimed a trick when defending my notrump contract. "Why play it out, you have to lose a diamond." He could see the impending squeeze, and didn't want play to continue. Under the Laws of the time (1960s) I could have required him to face his hand as I played it out, but there was no need for that and I took the rest. His excuse was to blame his novice partner for not killing the squeeze, saying she promised a protective card when she failed to do so. Yeah, sure. Most players in this club game would have given him the trick. He was just unlucky that I was a student of squeezes at the 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 Sat Dec 1 05:36:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUIa3205195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:36:03 +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 fAUIZwH05191 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:35:58 +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 fAUIT7w14341 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:29:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005f01c179cc$c8ec4060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:22:23 -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: "Brian Meadows" > Marvin French wrote: > > > > >I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > >that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > >to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > >would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > >Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > >suitable warning) for violations. > > > > Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious > cross-ruff. > Put that into the regulation: One hand high or a cross-ruff with high trumps. It's the policy I have been following, and it has saved a lot of time for both me and TDs. 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 Dec 1 06:06:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUJ5I405225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:05:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUJ5DH05221 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:05:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAUIwEb18935 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:58:14 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200111301858.fAUIwEb18935@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:58:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Marvin L. French" at Nov 30, 2001 10:17:27 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:17:27 -0800 > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC > meeting > > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or > declarer, > > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, > IMO. > > > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > > suitable warning) for violations. > > > > Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting > > that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: > > > > -- > > -- > > -- > > QJTxx > > > > -- > > xx > > -- > > AKx > > > > that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? > > > No PP for that, I'm sure. Lay down the AK of clubs, then the small club, > and say "Dummy's good." > TY: And what if the suit splits 4-1 or 5-0 and one opponent goes into the tank for discards. If they are playing more complicated discards like odd-even or something and they have to work out what to discard, it would annoy an opponent to have to work out a pointless discard. That would violate two etiquette rules, L74A2 and L4B4. I think the point here is that you are making problems for more common situations and hands when you try to solve a less common problem with complex claims. > The purpose of the regulation rule is to avoid those situations in which > the opposition has to check back and forth between the two hands, > counting tricks and looking for possible blockage. Also, to avoid those > situations in which inexperienced opponents are reluctant to contest a > claim even if they don't see its validity. > TY: then you have to have a longer regulation that addresses this problem. The solution that was presented is far worse than the original problem. This number of claims that occur in our weekly 60 table game is large. And the number that would be restricted is prohibited. We already have a problem with players running over time on the rounds and this would exacerbate the problem and create more problems than it helped. Write the regulation correctly to address the problem and we wouldn't have this argument. For example, you could write the regulation that a claim needs to be described in two or three simple statements (cross-ruff, finesse a spade, play clubs for a heart-diamond squeeze, etc). You could also restrict claims on certain types of lines of play such as squeezes of any sort, etc. > To accomplish this, one needs a simple rule that may look silly at > times. If a player conforms to its intent but not to its literal > requirement, no problem and no PP. > > Another suggestion with some support is to let opponents say, "Please > let's play it out," which can be too silly at times. > > I recall the occasion when the despicable Ivan Erdos claimed a trick > when defending my notrump contract. "Why play it out, you have to lose a > diamond." He could see the impending squeeze, and didn't want play to > continue. Under the Laws of the time (1960s) I could have required him > to face his hand as I played it out, but there was no need for that and > I took the rest. His excuse was to blame his novice partner for not > killing the squeeze, saying she promised a protective card when she > failed to do so. Yeah, sure. > TY: Ah, but this is a punishable offense. L72A2 clearly gives the director grounds to punish this type of offense now. I understand that it may not have been possible at the time, but it is now. > Most players in this club game would have given him the trick. He was > just unlucky that I was a student of squeezes at the time. > TY: And now, if he gets bitten once or twice, he'll either leave the club or learn not to intimidate like that. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 06:08:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUJ8RB05237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:08:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUJ8MH05233 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:08:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAUJ1Ql19041 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:01:26 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200111301901.fAUJ1Ql19041@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:01:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Marvin L. French" at Nov 30, 2001 10:22:23 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:22:23 -0800 > > > > Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious > > cross-ruff. > > > Put that into the regulation: One hand high or a cross-ruff with high > trumps. It's the policy I have been following, and it has saved a lot of > time for both me and TDs. > And what about a repeating finesse such as: AQJT9 xx xx xx xxxx AK AK AKx Where you are just going to keep crossing over to the aces and taking the finesse. Either it wins or it loses. Either your regulation needs to be more restrictive or your end up putting in so many exceptions that it is large and cumbersome. It would be simpler to write the regulation more restrictive than more general with a list of a ton of exceptions. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 06:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUJO8o05254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:24:09 +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 fAUJO3H05250 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:24:04 +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 OAA02653 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA18853 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111301917.OAA18853@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L24 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [exposed card during auction] > From: "Kooijman, A." > Some of us stated that before '87 it certainly was authorized I'm the "some of us," I expect, except that it was before '97. Prior to '97, there was not the slightest hint otherwise. Furthermore, L16C2 made most information arising from infractions AI, although it didn't explicitly address this exact situation. As a general principle, if the lawmakers want a card face up on the table to be UI, I think they need to say so explicitly. Which players will imagine a visible card to be UI unless they are told it is? > and that we have to assume it still is. Why so sure about that? I'm not "so sure," but I don't see anything to the contrary. If you want to cite L16C2, I think you have to show why the face-up card can be considered a withdrawn action. And 16A seems very far-fetched, based on the general principle above. A face-up card bears no resemblence to the cited examples of UI. I agree that the exposed card might very well damage the NOS, even with the penalty. (Occasionally L72B1 might help but not always.) I think the proper remedy in future Laws is _either_ make the card UI but no further penalty (and the exposed card is picked up), _or_ force the exposer's partner to pass throughout the auction (and it won't matter whether the card is AI or UI during the auction). But as in so many other cases, the combination of equity and mechanical penalties is not good. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 1 06:29:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUJT9805267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:29:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUJT3H05262 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:29:04 +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 LAA20343; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:22:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200111301922.LAA20343@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:58:14 EST." <200111301858.fAUIwEb18935@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:22:10 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:17:27 -0800 > > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC > > meeting > > > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or > > declarer, > > > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, > > IMO. > > > > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > > > suitable warning) for violations. > > > > > > Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting > > > that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > -- > > > QJTxx > > > > > > -- > > > xx > > > -- > > > AKx > > > > > > that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? > > > > > No PP for that, I'm sure. Lay down the AK of clubs, then the small club, > > and say "Dummy's good." > > > > TY: And what if the suit splits 4-1 or 5-0 and one opponent > goes into the tank for discards. If they are playing more > complicated discards like odd-even or something and they have > to work out what to discard, it would annoy an opponent to have > to work out a pointless discard. That would violate two > etiquette rules, L74A2 and L4B4. I agree, this doesn't solve the problem. OTOH, it occurred to me that a way to solve this would be for declarer to face his cards and keep playing instead of claiming. The defense would concede immediately, in a simple case such as this. The current Laws say that a contestant claims when he shows his cards unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim (L68A); if we started putting severe restrictions on claims, I think L68A should also be changed so that declarer could face his cards and keep playing, and perhaps could also make a statement about how he intends to keep playing, and it would not be considered a "claim" unless declarer said it was. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 06:30:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUJUYr05279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:30:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUJUTH05275 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 06:30:29 +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 OAA02922 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA18996 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:23:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:23:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200111301923.OAA18996@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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > 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. I basically agree with Tim, but of course we have to ask what the double would mean in the EW partnership. Still, with heart length and two defensive tricks in spades, it's hard to think of an agreement under which West wouldn't double. > 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?". West is to assume that East would have bid the same given correct explanations throughout the prior auction. If West's bidding would have been different absent the MI, there will no doubt be an adjusted score regardless of what West does at her final turn. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 1 07:08:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUK8E305309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:08:15 +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 fAUK89H05305 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:08:10 +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 MAA21315; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:01:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200111302001.MAA21315@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 "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:59:00 GMT." Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:01:16 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > 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. I think this brings up a legal issue where some clarification might be needed. The Laws say that after an infraction, if an adjusted score is awarded, it is computed based on the most favorable/unfavorable result that was likely/probable "had the irregularity not occurred." There's a subtle point about this last phrase, though, in that the answers to the two following questions may be different: (1) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper information? (2) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper information, and also had the knowledge that South misinterpreted her partner's bid? The answer to (1) is as Tim says, that East should now double to show hearts. The answer to (2), however, may be different. If E-W know that South were going to pass the transfer, they may well just pass it out. I'm not sure which is the legally correct question to ask. I recall a related argument on BLML a number of years ago, and I believe I had my mind changed by that argument, so that now I think (2) is the right question. So I'd be happy to adjust to 4H down 8, IF N-S WERE VULNERABLE. At the actual vulnerability, though, I believe it's "likely" (in the legal 12C2 sense) that E-W would realize that letting them play 4H undoubled at matchpoints is likely to be a bad board, and they'd take some action. In fact, I think it's unfair to E-W to give them only +400. -- 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 Dec 1 07:16:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUKFpE05326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:15:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUKFjH05322 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:15:46 +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 fAUK7sj05645; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:07:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:00:37 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:43 AM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting >that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, >to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this >would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. I disagree. As declarer, I have often claimed on a cross-ruff. This regulation would make that illegal. 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/AwUBPAfnJ72UW3au93vOEQKIkACgpvjTZ1xgADOflrAgbwUQmQ2+rfwAmQH0 GUSAJX1kSAtUirakCGS73JGd =B6+o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 07:24:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fAUKOgf05338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:24:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fAUKOaH05334 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:24:37 +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 fAUKHaj17299; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:17:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:14:22 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:17 AM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >The purpose of the regulation rule is to avoid those situations in which >the opposition has to check back and forth between the two hands, >counting tricks and looking for possible blockage. I don't see why that should be a problem. It may take a little more effort than blindly following to declarer's leads, but I it shouldn't take more time - if defenders have been paying attention. >Also, to avoid those >situations in which inexperienced opponents are reluctant to contest a >claim even if they don't see its validity. Heh. In my experience, opponents (at least, the inexperienced ones) *always* contest my claims, usually because they have no clue what is going on in the hand. 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/AwUBPAfpZ72UW3au93vOEQLlkACdGlzbryrJjCTLbssiBm3oVoCjzLUAoL0I 2l1PTHjKaIsnyLMDSwcVqyns =6Kjp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 12:37:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB11aOq03777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:36:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB11aFH03768 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:36:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-72-139.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.72.139] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169yy1-0006bM-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 01:29:22 +0000 Message-ID: <002201c17a07$c0d922e0$8b487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129174752.00b415c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:44:21 -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 Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT > At 04:37 AM 11/22/01, Takis wrote: > > > > >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. > > +=+ Only a few false cards are accidental.+=+ > > >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 > +=+ If the report is accurate the player can establish that his time was taken thinking, with a demonstrable bridge reason for 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 Sat Dec 1 12:37:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB11aPJ03778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:36:25 +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-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 fB11aHH03770 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:36:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-72-139.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.72.139] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169yy4-0006bM-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 01:29:25 +0000 Message-ID: <002401c17a07$c2c78560$8b487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "=?Windows-1252?Q?'Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n'?=" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 01:28:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "'Hans-Olof Hallén'" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: law 82C > > > 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 > multiplied 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 > -- +=+ Whereas I do not see it in that light. Each of the sides at the table is entitled, in its own right, to a fair comparison with the other teams in the event. It does not get a fair comparison if you shave off part of the score which it should fairly receive. In fashioning the laws we made a positive decision that teams at a table where there is a misadventure of some kind are to be protected in their scores and that other teams in the tournament have no rights in the matter. This was particularly reflected in Law 92A - "a ruling made at his table" - excluding the right of any other contestant to intervene. The question concerns an aspect of the laws that was not unforeseen, did not come about by accident, but which is the outcome of deliberation and decision. If the objective were never to award a total exceeding 30VPs between two teams when they meet, then equity would require the introduction of fresh dynamics in the scoring so that all scores to be compared were mitigated in the same degree as those of teams that have been denied.their full dues as innocent or partially innocent parties. We chose instead to allow each such team its just score, to be compared with the unreconstructed scores of other teams in the tournament; it seemed slightly less complex. And how should we allow a non-offending side only 50% on a board if its immediate opponent is equally non-offending, but 60% when its immediate opponent has unclean hands? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 12:49:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB11mtE03805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:48:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB11moH03801 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:48:50 +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 fB11fwb24787; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:41:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009e01c17a09$363f58a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: References: <200111301922.LAA20343@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:37:04 -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" > > The current Laws say that a contestant claims when he shows his cards > unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim (L68A); if we started > putting severe restrictions on claims, I think L68A should also be > changed so that declarer could face his cards and keep playing, and > perhaps could also make a statement about how he intends to keep > playing, and it would not be considered a "claim" unless declarer said > it was. I do this frequently, saying as I show my hand, "I am not making a claim, but you may wish to concede at some point in the play." I do this, for instance, in the process of making one hand high so that a claim will be clear. Obviously I demonstrably do not intend to claim at the time I make this statement, so the procedure is perfectly legal. 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 Dec 1 12:56:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB11ui903818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:56:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB11udH03814 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:56:39 +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 RAA27788; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:49:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200112010149.RAA27788@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:37:04 PST." <009e01c17a09$363f58a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:49:45 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > The current Laws say that a contestant claims when he shows his cards > > unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim (L68A); if we started > > putting severe restrictions on claims, I think L68A should also be > > changed so that declarer could face his cards and keep playing, and > > perhaps could also make a statement about how he intends to keep > > playing, and it would not be considered a "claim" unless declarer said > > it was. > > I do this frequently, saying as I show my hand, "I am not making a > claim, but you may wish to concede at some point in the play." I do > this, for instance, in the process of making one hand high so that a > claim will be clear. Obviously I demonstrably do not intend to claim at > the time I make this statement, so the procedure is perfectly legal. Right. I'm just saying that if we put restrictions on claims, facing one's cards and playing on may well become the rule rather than the exception, and we may not want to require declarers to say "I am not making a claim" every time they do so. -- 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 Dec 1 13:09:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB129Jq05995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:09:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB129EH05975 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:09:14 +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 fB122Mb09187; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:02:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:56:16 -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: "Adam Beneschan" > > I think this brings up a legal issue where some clarification might be > needed. The Laws say that after an infraction, if an adjusted score > is awarded, it is computed based on the most favorable/unfavorable > result that was likely/probable "had the irregularity not occurred." > There's a subtle point about this last phrase, though, in that the > answers to the two following questions may be different: > Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got shot down on that. Does it make sense to omit those words for the OS? I dreamt up one example: 1C-P-1S-P 1NT-P-P-2D P-P-2S-P * P-Dbl All pass * Break in tempo The TD rules that the double was demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo, and therefore changes the score from down one doubled to down one undoubled. 2D would have gone down one also, so the OS gets that score even though it is a result that has no relation to the infraction. Something about this example doesn't sit right with me, and I wonder if (1) it's not valid and (2) someone could come up with a clearly valid example. Perhaps it has to be a result that is subsequent to the infraction but not affected by it, if that's possible. 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 Dec 1 13:15:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB12FTd07216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:15:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB12FMH07192 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:15:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-102-149.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.102.149] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169zZu-000Ogl-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 02:08:30 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:06:43 -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 Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC > meeting > > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or > declarer, > > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. > > +=+ Amongst the early papers circulated amongst members of thwe WBF Drafting Sub-committee, a few months ago, there is a thought of mine as follows (needing refinement no doubt): "C. A claim may be made when either (a) all the claimed tricks are top tricks to be made by cashing high cards, or (b) the claimed tricks may be developed from the remaining cards (as for example by a squeeze play) in a manner clarified in a statement that must be made by the claimant at the time of the claim This statement must specify the order in which the cards will be played and is subject to the provisions of Laws 68E and 70C. If no statement is made, or an incomplete statement, the claim will be deemed a claim in the manner of (a). D. Play ceases. E. In a claim where the tricks are to be made by cashing high cards the claimant does not have the benefit of the fall of a card when there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." We are attacking the subject from a number of viewpoints. You will have noted Ralph Cohen's thought of allowing an option of playing the hand out, again requiring refinement. I am not all that happy, though, with the thought of addressing the subject in regulations outside of the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 1 17:50:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB16mTV12404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 17:48:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB16mNH12400 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 17:48:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from Isis221.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis221.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.221]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GNN0001HJX4HI@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:41:30 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 07:41:25 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: [BLML] On using stops In-reply-to: To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Reply-to: Richard Bley Message-id: <931556132.20011201074125@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, as I read the thread about banning claims I questioned myself the following: Is is possible for a SO to regulate using "STOP"-cards in a way, that you lose "all your rights" if you don´t use the STOP card? The effect is: After a "nonusing STOP-jump" the opponents are allowed to think as long as they want (nothing special) and there partner can use this information without L16. Most of the TD here in germany use this as an SPLIT-Score aggregator, i.e.: The hesitating side get a bad score and the non-STOPping side takes the score which happened. I personally think this is not allowed; but what shall I do? -- 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 Dec 2 03:57:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1Gsui25629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 03:54:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1GspH25625 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 03:54:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.12.217] (helo=[217.35.12.217]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ADIv-0007HM-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 16:47:53 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:47:50 +0000 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 2:06 am +0000 1/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Amongst the early papers circulated amongst >members of thwe WBF Drafting Sub-committee, a few >months ago, there is a thought of mine as follows >(needing refinement no doubt): > > "C. A claim may be made when either (a) all the >claimed tricks are top tricks to be made by cashing >high cards, or (b) the claimed tricks may be developed >from the remaining cards (as for example by a >squeeze play) in a manner clarified in a statement >that must be made by the claimant at the time of >the claim This statement must specify the order in >which the cards will be played and is subject to the >provisions of Laws 68E and 70C. If no statement is >made, or an incomplete statement, the claim will be >deemed a claim in the manner of (a). > >D. Play ceases. > >E. In a claim where the tricks are to be made by >cashing high cards the claimant does not have the >benefit of the fall of a card when there is an alternative >normal line of play that would be less successful." > > We are attacking the subject from a number >of viewpoints. You will have noted Ralph Cohen's >thought of allowing an option of playing the hand out, >again requiring refinement. I am not all that happy, >though, with the thought of addressing the subject >in regulations outside of the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, On the assumption that you posted this looking for feedback, I've been trying to read this for some hours now and confess it makes limited sense to me (a mere player whose directing experience is limited to local clubs) :) Section E seems to be saying that if I claim by saying I will cash high cards. and a doubleton Q offside falls in this process I shall be deemed to have taken the losing finesse! Surely this is not really your intention? Section C on the other hand seems only to differ from the existing Law in *requiring* a claim statement to be made. Fair enough, except it's taken me several readings in tandem with the existing Law to get that far in understanding it, and I'm still not clear what happens in the case of an incomplete claim. What constitutes an incomplete claim? And in the case of such a claim, where it is deemed to be a claim by cashing top tricks, how is the order of the cashing determined? It would be interesting to hear what you were aiming at with this, because I agree with you that it does seem to need refinement. -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 2 05:29:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1ITAY25679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:29:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1IT4H25674 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:29:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.82.190]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20011201181933.POLU16035.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:19:33 +0000 Message-ID: <015201c17a95$1c517220$be52073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Test Message Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:21:27 -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 Hi Everyone I sent a couple of posts to BLML recently but I haven't received a copy of them back from BLML and so I am wondering if they were received OK. Please could somebody acknowledge this post. Thanks. David -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 2 05:31:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1IVhF25691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:31:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1IVcH25687 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:31:38 +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 NAA04800 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:24:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA00895 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:24:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:24:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112011824.NAA00895@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 [after MI from NS, how do we adjust?] > From: Adam Beneschan > (1) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper > information? > > (2) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper > information, and also had the knowledge that South misinterpreted > her partner's bid? We have discussed this before. I believe the consensus was that (1) was the proper question. EW are entitled to know the NS agreements but not what the opponents are thinking. If they happen to find out, of course they are welcome to use the information as they wish, but they are not _entitled_ to the information, and an adjustment should reflect only information to which EW are entitled. As with much else on BLML, I don't believe we were unanimous, but I don't remember who was on the other side. Herman was an advocate of (1), and I agree with him. Maybe that means (2) is correct. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 2 05:43:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1IhlE25707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:43:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1IhgH25703 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:43:43 +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 NAA04966 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA01095 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:36:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:36:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112011836.NAA01095@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Vital Reisinger Appeal (highly unofficial version) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" quoting Barry Rigal: > The Committee concluded that the Misinformation had caused > the damage, There was a very similar case in a World Championship some years ago. South had correctly described his hand to West, and North had correctly described the NS agreement to East. The defenders subsequently went wrong in a cashout situation. You might think that there would be no adjustment, reasoning no infraction by North and that South's explanation, although an infraction, ought to have helped the defense. However, in reality the score was adjusted because the defense depended on North and South having heard the _same_ explanation. For whatever it's worth, I think both of these are correct rulings. We often say players are obliged to explain their agreements, not their actual hands, and we refuse to adjust when someone psychs or misbids. Well, that cuts both ways. If an explanation of one's hand instead of the true agreement causes damage, even indirectly, then we must adjust. As always, the relevant question is, "What would have happened after a correct explanation?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 2 06:10:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1J83h25745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:08:03 +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 fB1J7tH25737 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:07:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fB1J12b04154 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001801c17a9a$6cf91520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:50:39 -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: > > > > > > > We are attacking the subject from a number > >of viewpoints. You will have noted Ralph Cohen's > >thought of allowing an option of playing the hand out, > >again requiring refinement. I am not all that happy, > >though, with the thought of addressing the subject > >in regulations outside of the laws.~ There seems to be a lot of support over here for the "play it out" option, which accords with the rubber bridge Laws. It also is common among duplicate players who don't know the claim laws, which has been one of the supporting arguments: "People are doing it, why not make it legal?" A refinement that has been suggested is that a player can refuse to play it out if one hand is high, or the claimed number of tricks comprises high cards in one hand. That sounds like rubber bridge, too. A cross-ruff with high trumps could be another exception. I don't see any harm in this option, provided that players can still halt play and have the TD adjudicate a claim. The option must not be extended to the claimer, who therefore could not say, "Oh, all right, I'll play it out." Yes, this would require a change in the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 2 06:10:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1J84d25746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:08:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB1J7tH25738 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:07:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fB1J12b04158 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001901c17a9a$6d117f20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <931556132.20011201074125@uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] On using stops Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:58:22 -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 Bley" > as I read the thread about banning claims I questioned myself the following: > Is is possible for a SO to regulate using "STOP"-cards in a way, that you lose "all your rights" if you don´t use the STOP card? > The effect is: > After a "nonusing STOP-jump" the opponents are allowed to think as long as they want (nothing special) and there partner can use this information without L16. > Most of the TD here in germany use this as an SPLIT-Score aggregator, i.e.: The hesitating side get a bad score and the non-STOPping side takes the score which happened. > I personally think this is not allowed; but what shall I do? Regulations may not conflict with the Laws, despite some contrary opinions. I'd say follow the Laws as best you can when there is a conflict, as seems to exist in this case. TDs over here routinely do not enforce regulations they dislike, even those that are legal. 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 Dec 2 07:59:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1KwP800472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 07:58:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1KwIH00441 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 07:58:19 +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 UAA16383 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:51:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:49:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: [BLML] Classic double dummy problem search MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As ever, I've deleted it, but there's a well known hand that turns up on rgb about once every 6 months. North is AQx T9876 QJTxx -, South is - AKQJ AK Axxxxxx or something like it. contract 7H. It's an unblocking problem. Anyone got a copy they can email me? TIA 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 Dec 2 09:01:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB1M0DY03937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:00:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta03-app.talk21.com (mta03.talk21.com [62.172.192.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB1M07H03933 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:00:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.14.221]) by t21mta03-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20011201215615.CNVW5442.t21mta03-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c17ab2$120a0b20$c810073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Test Message Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:48:50 -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 > Have you gotten lots of replies???? > Nancy ######### Yes. Thank you all very much! David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Martin" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 1:21 PM > Subject: [BLML] Test Message > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > I sent a couple of posts to BLML recently but I haven't received a copy of > > them back from BLML and so I am wondering if they were received OK. > Please > > could somebody acknowledge this post. > > > > Thanks. > > > > David > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 2 15:13:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB24BwL12379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:11:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB24BrH12375 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:11:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0642.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.148.132] helo=c1r5i8) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ANsA-0004C3-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:04:59 -0800 Message-ID: <001701bf54b1$e47b65a0$8494b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" Cc: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic double dummy problem search Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:42:39 -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 John, Try http://home.udmnet.ru/stas/bridge/br-ccc99.htm Tom Wood From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: [BLML] Classic double dummy problem search > As ever, I've deleted it, but there's a well known hand that turns up on > rgb about once every 6 months. North is AQx T9876 QJTxx -, South is > - AKQJ AK Axxxxxx or something like it. contract 7H. It's an unblocking > problem. Anyone got a copy they can email me? > > TIA John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 2 21:47:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2AkX325266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:46:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB2AkQH25262 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:46:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-143-178.arcor-ip.net [212.144.143.178]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AA3737D00 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:39:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002a01c17b1e$50c4e1c0$b28f90d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:35:58 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > I think this brings up a legal issue where some clarification might be > > needed. The Laws say that after an infraction, if an adjusted score > > is awarded, it is computed based on the most favorable/unfavorable > > result that was likely/probable "had the irregularity not occurred." > > There's a subtle point about this last phrase, though, in that the > > answers to the two following questions may be different: > > > Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies to > the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was included in > the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got shot down on that. > > Does it make sense to omit those words for the OS? I dreamt up one > example: > > 1C-P-1S-P > 1NT-P-P-2D > P-P-2S-P * > P-Dbl All pass > > * Break in tempo > > The TD rules that the double was demonstrably suggested by the break in > tempo, and therefore changes the score from down one doubled to down one > undoubled. 2D would have gone down one also, so the OS gets that score > even though it is a result that has no relation to the infraction. > > Something about this example doesn't sit right with me, and I wonder if > (1) it's not valid and (2) someone could come up with a clearly valid > example. Perhaps it has to be a result that is subsequent to the > infraction but not affected by it, if that's possible. You overlooked that the irregularity was after 2S alread had been bid. A better example would be: 1C-P-1S-P 1NT-P-P-2D P-P-2S-P * P-Dbl All pass * Break in tempo Declarer drops a trick here or there, and thus winds up down one in a contract he could have made. Do we adjust to 2S undoubled, just made, for the OS? Or even to 2S doubled, just made, for the OS? 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 Dec 3 08:13:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2LA9Q05164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:10:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB2LA3H05160 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:10:03 +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 IAA07049 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:13:07 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 07:48:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:00:10 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/12/2001 07:54:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >[after MI from NS, how do we adjust?] >> From: Adam Beneschan >> (1) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper >> information? >> >> (2) What would East-West have done if they had been given proper >> information, and also had the knowledge that South misinterpreted >> her partner's bid? > >We have discussed this before. I believe the consensus was that (1) was >the proper question. EW are entitled to know the NS agreements but not >what the opponents are thinking. If they happen to find out, of course >they are welcome to use the information as they wish, but they are not >_entitled_ to the information, and an adjustment should reflect only >information to which EW are entitled. > >As with much else on BLML, I don't believe we were unanimous, but I >don't remember who was on the other side. Herman was an advocate of >(1), and I agree with him. Maybe that means (2) is correct. :-) In a Bridge World Editorial circa 1977, Edgar Kaplan was a strong supporter of (2). His argument was that the requirements of Law were equivalent to East and West both possessing a computer printout of the NS agreements. And EW were also entitled to know - by the failure to Alert - that South had forgotten the NS agreements. Therefore, if it was advantageous for EW to defend 4H, eight off, then that was to be the adjusted score, pursuant to the (2) interpretation. 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 Dec 3 09:26:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MOIL05217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 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 mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB2MNxH05213 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:24:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from newron3d ([62.0.76.4]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GNQ00CRQLW357@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:16:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:14:14 +0200 From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= Subject: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. To: BLML BLML Message-id: <001501c17b7e$ae4c0d40$044c003e@newron3d> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_tJ+6SuznZiZu5ngo+IgDyg)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_tJ+6SuznZiZu5ngo+IgDyg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E AKT6 T94 AJ74 JT Q8 J754 K86 AQJ52 6 52 KQ98742 53 932 73 KQT983 A6 E S W N 2D(1) 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) = Weak, both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer that low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2. What is your opinion ? ====================== Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 ======================== --Boundary_(ID_tJ+6SuznZiZu5ngo+IgDyg) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E
 
                                                                               AKT6
                                                                               T94
                                                                               AJ74
                                                                               JT
                                                             Q8                              J754
                                                             K86                             AQJ52
                                                             6                                 52
                                                             KQ98742                     53
                                                                                932
                                                                                73
                                                                                KQT983
                                                                                A6 
                            
                                                     E                 S                  W                N          
                                                     2D(1)            3D                Pass           3NT                 
                                                     Pass            Pass            Pass
 
                                                     (1) = Weak, both Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer
that  low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2.
 
 What is your opinion ?
           
 
======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
--Boundary_(ID_tJ+6SuznZiZu5ngo+IgDyg)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 3 09:28:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MQrH05229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:26:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB2MQWH05225 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:26:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from newron3d ([62.0.76.4]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GNQ00C9RM0FH0@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:19:29 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:16:51 +0200 From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= Subject: [BLML] To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <002401c17b7f$0b1b8320$044c003e@newron3d> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_yYoJeJIuyMdw3lI25ZmE3Q)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_yYoJeJIuyMdw3lI25ZmE3Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E AKT6 T94 AJ74 JT Q8 J754 K86 AQJ52 6 52 KQ98742 53 932 73 KQT983 A6 E S W N 2D(1) 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) = Weak, both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer that low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2. What is your opinion ? ====================== Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 ======================== ====================== Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 ======================== --Boundary_(ID_yYoJeJIuyMdw3lI25ZmE3Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E
 
                                                                               AKT6
                                                                               T94
                                                                               AJ74
                                                                               JT
                                                             Q8                              J754
                                                             K86                             AQJ52
                                                             6                                 52
                                                             KQ98742                     53
                                                                                932
                                                                                73
                                                                                KQT983
                                                                                A6 
                            
                                                     E                 S                  W                N          
                                                     2D(1)            3D                Pass           3NT                 
                                                     Pass            Pass            Pass
 
                                                     (1) = Weak, both Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer
that  low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2.
 
 What is your opinion ?
           
 
======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
--Boundary_(ID_yYoJeJIuyMdw3lI25ZmE3Q)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 3 09:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MZm605242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:35:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB2MZbH05238 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:35:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from newron3d ([62.0.76.4]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GNQ004SLMFK78@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:28:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:25:56 +0200 From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= Subject: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 To: BLML BLML Message-id: <005401c17b80$4fef55c0$044c003e@newron3d> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_rsDZ/KycC2jD9oU6/v/sqA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_rsDZ/KycC2jD9oU6/v/sqA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi all, In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E AKT6 T94 AJ74 JT Q8 J754 K86 AQJ52 6 52 KQ98742 53 932 73 KQT983 A6 E S W N 2D(1) 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) = Weak, both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer that low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2. What is your opinion ? ====================== Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 ======================== ====================== Ilan Shezifi ====================== Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 ======================== --Boundary_(ID_rsDZ/KycC2jD9oU6/v/sqA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi all,
 
In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E
 
                                                                               AKT6
                                                                               T94
                                                                               AJ74
                                                                               JT
                                                             Q8                              J754
                                                             K86                             AQJ52
                                                             6                                 52
                                                             KQ98742                     53
                                                                                932
                                                                                73
                                                                                KQT983
                                                                                A6 
                            
                                                     E                 S                  W                N          
                                                     2D(1)            3D                Pass           3NT                 
                                                     Pass            Pass            Pass
 
                                                     (1) = Weak, both Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer
that  low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2.
 
 What is your opinion ?
           
 
======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
======================
Ilan Shezifi
======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
--Boundary_(ID_rsDZ/KycC2jD9oU6/v/sqA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 3 09:51:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MnMO05270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:49:22 +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 fB2MnBH05257 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:49:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-152.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.152] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16AfJM-000D17-00; Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:42:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c17b82$bedcf080$9856063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Gordon Rainsford" References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:27:46 -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" ; "Marvin L. French" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > >At 2:06 am +0000 1/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > It would be interesting to hear what you were > aiming at with this, because I agree with you > that it does seem to need refinement. > +=+ No specific aim other than to open up discussion in the subcommittee about the possible solutions. The thinking is tentative, around the idea that only unambiguous simple claims should be invited, and reaches no conclusions. ~ 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 Dec 3 09:51:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MnPm05271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:49:25 +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-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 fB2MnEH05263 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:49:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-152.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.152] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16AfJQ-000D17-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:42:16 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c17b82$c0ee6b60$9856063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Forbidden Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:06:59 -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 Grattan Endicott; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:49:10 +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 fB2MgEb05596 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:42:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001a01c17b82$72ff8d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c17b1e$50c4e1c0$b28f90d4@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:38:22 -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: "Thomas Dehn" > > Marvin wrote: > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > > I think this brings up a legal issue where some clarification might be > > > needed. The Laws say that after an infraction, if an adjusted score > > > is awarded, it is computed based on the most favorable/unfavorable > > > result that was likely/probable "had the irregularity not occurred." > > > There's a subtle point about this last phrase, though, in that the > > > answers to the two following questions may be different: > > > > > Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies to > > the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was included in > > the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got shot down on that. > > > > Does it make sense to omit those words for the OS? I dreamt up one > > example: > > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > P-P-2S-P * > > P-Dbl All pass > > > > * Break in tempo > > > > The TD rules that the double was demonstrably suggested by the break in > > tempo, and therefore changes the score from down one doubled to down one > > undoubled. 2D would have gone down one also, so the OS gets that score > > even though it is a result that has no relation to the infraction. > > > > Something about this example doesn't sit right with me, and I wonder if > > (1) it's not valid and (2) someone could come up with a clearly valid > > example. Perhaps it has to be a result that is subsequent to the > > infraction but not affected by it, if that's possible. > > You overlooked that the irregularity was after 2S > already had been bid. L12C2 does not give a time constraint for "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." It probably should, but I can't come up with an example in which the NOS gets a result that was sufficiently likely absent the infraction and the OS gets a result that was at all probable, infraction or no infraction, unless the latter result precedes the infraction. > 1C-P-1S-P > 1NT-P-P-2D > P-P-2S-P * > P-Dbl All pass > > * Break in tempo > > Declarer drops a trick here or there, > and thus winds up down one in a contract > he could have made. > > Do we adjust to 2S undoubled, just made, for > the OS? Or even to 2S doubled, just made, > for the OS? > That depends on whether the bad play was egregiously bad, irrational. A revoke would qualify. If so, the NOS gets the table result, while the OS gets the result of either 2S undoubled down one or 2D their way down one, I'm not sure which. While it was "at all probable" that 2S would have made, it didn't in reality, and that is now 100% certain. Rich Colker would agree, Grattan would not. I must remember to put this matter before the ACBL LC. If the play was not sufficiently bad to annul redress, then either 2S down one undoubled for both sides, or that result for the NOS with the OS getting 2D down one, I'm not sure which. 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 Dec 3 09:53:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB2MpwZ05301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:51:58 +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-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 fB2MpqH05297 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:51:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-152.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.152] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16AfJO-000D17-00; Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:42:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c17b82$c00b1040$9856063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , References: <002101c178b3$2c37d460$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:44:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:52 AM Subject: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- > 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? +=+ North has a t.o. double of 2H natural. If no alert meant that 2H shows Spades then North may well be damaged.+=+ 2° I tried to convince the TD after the tournament that the A+/A- ruling was illegal. Do you agree with me? +=+ There should be an assigned adjusted score. Law 12C1 does not apply.+=+ 3° What is your ruling? Poland is in the L12C3 territory. +=+ Possibly 2Hx-1 ~ 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 Dec 3 12:35:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB31Y0O10150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:34:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB31XsH10146 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:33:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fB31Qxb25020 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 17:26:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004401c17b99$6dc00cc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001501c17b7e$ae4c0d40$044c003e@newron3d> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 17:20:09 -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 From: "àéìï ùæéôé" > In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. > > Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E > > AKT6 > T94 > AJ74 > JT > Q8 J754 > K86 AQJ52 > 6 52 > KQ98742 53 > 932 > 73 > KQT983 > A6 > > E S W N > 2D(1) 3D Pass 3NT > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) = Weak, both Majors > > After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer > that low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2. > > What is your opinion ? > Of course North had a bridge reason. When wanting to discourage a continuation, declarer plays the same system as the defenders, which means playing low if they play low to discourage, and playing high if they play high to discourage (as in this case). Declarer has to know what the defenders are playing in order to do that. The question is perhaps a giveaway as to North's weakness in hearts. That is one reason why CCs should be in plain view, enabling a declarer to casually glance at the nearest one to see the opponents' carding while the opening lead is being considered. Lacking a strong signalling card, West should have played the king to the opening lead. 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 Dec 3 23:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3CRO505517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:27:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3CRDH05513 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:27:13 +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 NAA29091; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:17:02 +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 NAA00399; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:20:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203131734.00abaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:21:24 +0100 To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-Reply-To: <9tff0u053rgfc48urhaj0mmkd47ceiir0p@4ax.com> References: <002501c179bf$75a2c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c179bf$75a2c300$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 12:25 30/11/2001 -0500, Brian Meadows wrote: >Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious >cross-ruff. AG : apart from agrreing that it would be tedious to crossruff till the end, I'd like to know what a PITA is outside the field of gastronomy (?). Is it the superlative of 'a pity' ? I usually use WOMBAT in such cases, with all due respect to the BLMLMaster and his compatriots. 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 Dec 3 23:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3CRfr05523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:27:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep2.012.net.il (fep2.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.202]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3CRXH05519 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:27:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from 012.net.il ([212.199.15.14]) by fep2.012.net.il with ESMTP id <20011203121608.KTTR27760.fep2@012.net.il>; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:16:08 +0200 Message-ID: <3C0B6E75.50C34198@012.net.il> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:22:13 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: hebrew,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=E0=E9=EC=EF=20=F9=E6=E9=F4=E9?= CC: BLML BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. References: <001501c17b7e$ae4c0d40$044c003e@newron3d> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CDE7FF5E16E574E479666284" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --------------CDE7FF5E16E574E479666284 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Ilan: Seems to me declarer has to ask so he can know whether to play the 9 or the four to give opponent a guess. If he plays the four, opponent knows what to do. zvika àéìï ùæéôé wrote: > In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international > players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - > E > AKT6 > T94 > AJ74 > JT > Q8 > J754 > K86 > AQJ52 > 6 > 52 > KQ98742 > 53 > 932 > 73 > KQT983 > A6 > E S W > N 2D(1) > 3D Pass > 3NT > Pass Pass > Pass (1) = Weak, > both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the > declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answerthat low > = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl > and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to > the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge > reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to > law 73.F.2. What is your opinion ? ====================== > Ilan Shezifi > Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com > Tel : +972-3-7398288 > Mobile : +972-54-420406 > ======================== --------------CDE7FF5E16E574E479666284 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Ilan:

Seems to me declarer has to ask so he can know whether to play the 9 or the four to give opponent a guess. If he plays the four, opponent knows what to do.

zvika

àéìï ùæéôé wrote:

In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E                                                                                AKT6                                                                               T94                                                                               AJ74                                                                               JT                                                             Q8                              J754                                                             K86                             AQJ52                                                             6                                 52                                                             KQ98742                     53                                                                                932                                                                                73                                                                                KQT983                                                                                A6                                                      E                 S                  W                N                                                     2D(1)            3D                Pass           3NT                                                     Pass            Pass            Pass                                                      (1) = Weak, both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answerthat  low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2.  What is your opinion ?  ======================
Ilan Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel : +972-3-7398288
Mobile : +972-54-420406
========================
--------------CDE7FF5E16E574E479666284-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 3 23:35:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3CWRe05542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:32:27 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3CWLH05538 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:32:21 +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 NAA00129; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:22:14 +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 NAA05361; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:25:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203132330.00abcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:26:36 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:15 30/11/2001 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > suitable warning) for violations. > >Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting >that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: > > -- > -- > -- > QJTxx > > -- > xx > -- > AKx > >that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? AG : yes, he was, and Adam with him. You've found the perfect example if your intention was to show the absurdity of this restriction. (Lord knows, you might block yourself in your own hand !) 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 Dec 4 00:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3DfRw05596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:41:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3DfKH05592 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:41:20 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA27916; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:34:22 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 03 14:31:42 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 <01KBFNYUZUES002CUM@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:33:47 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:33:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:33:44 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: law 82C To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , =?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 > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > " If 50% of cheats are losers, what is the > point of cheating?" - Danny Blanchflower. Being sure you belong to the other 50%. > > > > > > 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 > > multiplied 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 > > -- > +=+ Whereas I do not see it in that light. I have some problems with your statements, because some are not specific enough to disagree but most suggest things that aren't said. Each of the > sides at the table is entitled, in its own right, to a fair > comparison with the other teams in the event. As far as possible I do agree. But since we do not play matchpoints nor cross imps or butler that comparison is quite remote. At 37 tables NS bid 4 spades and make 12 tricks and only at my table they bid 6 and make. Is this a fair comparison with the other teams in the event? No sir, but that is not the aim of this match, we want to know who scores better in your match only. It does > not get a fair comparison if you shave off part of the > score which it should fairly receive. This sentence doesn't have any 'working' meaning since it is trivial. Only when we define 'fairly' here it might become useful. And my approach is, especially looking at the other teams that it is not fair to devide 40 VP's between two teams where the others have 30 available. In fashioning the > laws we made a positive decision that teams at a > table where there is a misadventure of some kind are > to be protected in their scores and that other teams > in the tournament have no rights in the matter. Strange when you start saying that teams are entitled to a fair comparison with the other teams This > was particularly reflected in Law 92A - "a ruling made > at his table" - excluding the right of any other > contestant to intervene. Not very convincing to extend this appeal aproach to scoring. The question concerns an > aspect of the laws that was not unforeseen, did not > come about by accident, but which is the outcome > of deliberation and decision. If you have some archive I would like to be informed about this specific issue. It was not discussed in recent years. > If the objective were never to award a total > exceeding 30VPs between two teams when they > meet, then equity would require the introduction > of fresh dynamics in the scoring so that all scores to > be compared were mitigated in the same degree as > those of teams that have been denied.their full dues > as innocent or partially innocent parties. Is it possible to translate this in something you may hope I can understand? For the moment I do't see why my suggestion doesn't meet these conditions. We chose > instead to allow each such team its just score not 'its' but 'your' just score. , to > be compared with the unreconstructed scores of > other teams in the tournament What compared? Not compared at all! Independent of all other scores and leading to (my) unjust results. ; it seemed slightly > less complex. > And how should we allow a non-offending side > only 50% on a board if its immediate opponent is > equally non-offending, That is not what I am proposing. Both teams get their + 3 imps. But the calculation into VP's is amended. When both teams receive + 20 imps in the match they played against each other there is no winner in that match, which leads to 15VP's for both sides. Tell me what is unfair about that? This is a matter of definition, of changing priorities. It is the encounter that decides the result. Reading your last remarks I am not sure that you do understand my proposal,which makes me even more interested in the minutes of meetings where this subject might have been discussed. but 60% when its immediate > opponent has unclean hands? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think that we have a problem here which should get our attention. It is too early to deny it. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 02:49:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3Fm9w12788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:48:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3Fm2H12764 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:48:03 +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 HAA12837; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:41:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200112031541.HAA12837@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:21:24 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20011203131734.00abaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 07:41:01 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 12:25 30/11/2001 -0500, Brian Meadows wrote: > > > >Going to be an awful PITA playing out every trick of an obvious > >cross-ruff. > > AG : apart from agrreing that it would be tedious to crossruff till the > end, I'd like to know what a PITA is outside the field of gastronomy (?). PITA = "Pain in the butt". -- 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 Dec 4 02:49:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3FlA112554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:47:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3Fl3H12534 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:47:04 +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 fB3Fdwx20889; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:39:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:34:20 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203131734.00abaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20011203104001-R01010800-f4c9d1e5-0904-0109@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 12/3/01 at 1:21 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > apart from agrreing that it would be tedious to crossruff till the > end, I'd like to know what a PITA is outside the field of gastronomy (?). PITA = Pain In The Ass 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 03:34:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3GWO216466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 03:32:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3GWIH16462 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 03:32:19 +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 fB3GPJH32266 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:25:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203111210.00a9c210@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 11:27:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: 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 06:59 AM 11/30/01, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > >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? IMO yes. The legal issue is whether discarding the HK is "careless or inferior" or "irrational". I would find it to be the former. The fact that this particular declarer would never actually make such a "careless or inferior" play wouldn't affect my ruling. Previous threads, though, have established that I tend to give less weight to the words "for the class of player involved" than most BLMLers, so I won't be surprised to find myself in a minority on this point. I anticipate disagreement with those who will argue that discarding the HK would be irrational for the (one-person) "class of player" who would never do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 03:40:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3GdDL16484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 03:39:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3Gd7H16480 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 03:39:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.5.142] (helo=[217.35.5.142]) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Aw0n-0007RC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:32:09 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001101c17b82$bedcf080$9856063e@dodona> References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> <001101c17b82$bedcf080$9856063e@dodona> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:32:07 +0000 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:27 pm +0000 2/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >" If 50% of cheats are losers, what is the >point of cheating?" - Danny Blanchflower. > > >+ + + + + + + + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gordon Rainsford" >To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >"Marvin L. French" ; >"Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 4:47 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims > > >> >At 2:06 am +0000 1/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > > >> It would be interesting to hear what you were >> aiming at with this, because I agree with you >> that it does seem to need refinement. >> >+=+ No specific aim other than to open up >discussion in the subcommittee about the >possible solutions. The thinking is tentative, >around the idea that only unambiguous >simple claims should be invited, and reaches no conclusions. ~ G ~ +=+ Perhaps "simple" is the problem. That would inevitably lead to logical claims having to be disallowed. Insisting on unambiguous claims seems fine, with the benefit of any doubt given against inadequate claimers, but surely the main problems in practice in this area have only just been introduced at the last Laws revision? -- -- 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 Dec 4 04:32:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3HUf822536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 04:30:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3HUZH22521 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 04:30:35 +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 fB3HNcO22331 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:23:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c17c1f$27042ce0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Interim Interpretations of the Laws Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:22:53 -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 The ACBL LC has officially adopted a procedure that I have recommended for years (but I doubt they did it on my account): If a TD needs help with an interpretation of the Laws, two members of the LC will constitute a quorom for that case only. If they have to come up with something new, it must be submitted to the LC for confirmation at the next LC meeting (at an NABC, usually). Such interim interpretation cannot be applied generally until it is approved. This replaces the unofficial and undocumented procedure that has been possible previously, and is a very welcome change. One further step remains: The ACBL LC should in turn submit its interpretations to the WBF LC for approval, since the latter has sole authority for interpreting the Laws. Don't hold your breath until that happens. When announcing this policy, Ralph Cohen (who is looking great after apparently overcoming health problems) added that LC interpetations should represent a consensus, not a majority opinion. I haven't noticed any dissenters on the WBF LC, although some assenters seem reluctant, so perhaps that body has the same unwritten law. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 05:28:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3ISXI27574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:28:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3ISQH27570 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:28:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-146-123.arcor-ip.net [212.144.146.123]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F7337C0C for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:21:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <018a01c17c28$04537940$0a9490d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c17b1e$50c4e1c0$b28f90d4@rabbit> <001a01c17b82$72ff8d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:26:00 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Thomas Dehn" > > > > Marvin wrote: > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > > > > I think this brings up a legal issue > > > > where some clarification might be > > > > needed. The Laws say that after an infraction, > > > > if an adjusted score > > > > is awarded, it is computed based on the most favorable/unfavorable > > > > result that was likely/probable > > > > "had the irregularity not occurred." > > > > There's a subtle point about this last phrase, though, in that the > > > > answers to the two following questions may be different: > > > > > > > Small correction, Adam. "Had the > > > irregularity not occurred" applies to > > > the NOS adjustment only. I used to > > > argue that the phrase was included in > > > the OS adjustment's words "as understood, > > > " but I got shot down on that. > > > > > > Does it make sense to omit those words for the OS? I dreamt up one > > > example: > > > > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > > P-P-2S-P * > > > P-Dbl All pass > > > > > > * Break in tempo > > > > > > The TD rules that the double was > > > demonstrably suggested by the break in > > > tempo, and therefore changes the score > > > from down one doubled to down one > > > undoubled. 2D would have gone down > > > one also, so the OS gets that score > > > even though it is a result that has no relation to the infraction. > > > > > > Something about this example doesn't > > > sit right with me, and I wonder if > > > (1) it's not valid and (2) someone could > > > come up with a clearly valid > > > example. Perhaps it has to be a result that is subsequent to the > > > infraction but not affected by it, if that's possible. > > > > You overlooked that the irregularity was after 2S > > already had been bid. > > L12C2 does not give a time constraint for > "the most unfavorable result > that was at all probable." It does not need such a constraint. > It probably should, but I can't come up with > an example in which the NOS gets a result that was sufficiently likely > absent the infraction and the OS gets a result that was at all probable, > infraction or no infraction, unless the latter result precedes the > infraction. Maybe you missed the point. The bidding began > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > > P-P-2S Including the 2S bid, everything was fine, no UI was passed. You cannot remove the 2S bid from the bidding, it already happened. Whether there now is a subsequent irregularity or not, the bidding already began with > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > > P-P-2S and playing in 2D is not 'likely' after 2S has already been bid. The TD might possibly adjust to 3D (making whatever tricks that makes), but not to 2D. 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 Dec 4 05:28:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3IR4J27568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:27:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3IQwH27564 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:26:59 +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 fB3IJxH42494 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:19:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203131504.00accac0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:22:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. In-Reply-To: <001501c17b7e$ae4c0d40$044c003e@newron3d> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_20079136==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_20079136==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:14 PM 12/2/01, =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= wrote: >In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. > >Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E > > >AKT6 > >T94 > >AJ74 > >JT > Q8 > J754 > K86 > AQJ52 > 6 > 52 > KQ98742 > 53 > >932 > >73 > >KQT983 > >A6 > > E > S W N > 2D(1) > 3D Pass 3NT > Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) = Weak, both > Majors > >After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, >ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer >that low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next >trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was >called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have >any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score >according to law 73.F.2. > > What is your opinion ? I'd ask some questions first, but it sounds like I will discover that had N been told that high was encouraging, he would have played the H4. That's certainly a "bridge reason" for the question, whether or not you think it's a good one. Moreover, I don't see how the question itself (as opposed to the play of the H9) could be considered potentially deceptive; surely E would be more, not less, likely to be fooled by the play of the H9 had N not asked about the E-W signals before playing it. So I expect I would rule "result stands" unless I learned something truly unexpected. 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 --=====================_20079136==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 05:14 PM 12/2/01, =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= wrote:

In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E
 
                                                                               AKT6
                                                                               T94
                                                                               AJ74
                                                                               JT
                                                             Q8                              J754
                                                             K86                             AQJ52
                                                             6                                 52
                                                             KQ98742                     53
                                                                                932
                                                                                73
                                                                                KQT983
                                                                                A6
                           
                                                     E                 S                  W                N         
                                                     2D(1)            3D                Pass           3NT                
                                                     Pass            Pass            Pass
 
                                                     (1) = Weak, both Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer
that  low = encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to law 73.F.2.
 
 What is your opinion ?

I'd ask some questions first, but it sounds like I will discover that had N been told that high was encouraging, he would have played the H4.  That's certainly a "bridge reason" for the question, whether or not you think it's a good one.  Moreover, I don't see how the question itself (as opposed to the play of the H9) could be considered potentially deceptive; surely E would be more, not less, likely to be fooled by the play of the H9 had N not asked about the E-W signals before playing it.  So I expect I would rule "result stands" unless I learned something truly unexpected.


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 --=====================_20079136==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 06:29:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3JRlV01768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:27:47 +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 fB3JRfH01747 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:27:42 +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 fB3JKiO18887; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:20:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006c01c17c2f$7ec918e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203132330.00abcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:10:52 -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" > At 09:15 30/11/2001 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > I believe it was Meckstroth who suggested at the latest ACBL LC meeting > > > that the Laws might do well to require a claimant, defender or declarer, > > > to have all remaining winners in one hand. From what Ton says, this > > > would perhaps be better as a regulation. An excellent regulation, IMO. > > > Adjudicate the claim according to the Laws, but assess a PP (after > > > suitable warning) for violations. > > > >Wait a minute, I'm not sure I'm following. Was Meckstroth suggesting > >that if I were declarer at notrump and on lead with this: > > > > -- > > -- > > -- > > QJTxx > > > > -- > > xx > > -- > > AKx > > > >that I shouldn't be allowed to claim? > > AG : yes, he was, and Adam with him. You've found the perfect example if > your intention was to show the absurdity of this restriction. (Lord knows, > you might block yourself in your own hand !) > And this is absurd nitpicking. It is only in the event of possible damage that this Law would be the subject of a PP. Anyway, I think it should be a regulation (which are widely applied loosely), not a change in the Laws. "Players are encouraged not to claim until one hand contains all the claimed tricks, or the remainder of the tricks can be won with a cross-ruff using high trumps." Something like that. My experience has been that this procedure saves a lot of time (for both me and the TD) compared to the claiming of tricks when high cards are held in both hands. Even novices readily accede to my claims, and there is never a suspicion that I have tried to put something over on them. Naturally, two experienced pairs at the table can dispense with the practice, as I do against a strong pair. 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 Dec 4 08:20:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3LJEx29171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:19:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3LJ8H29160 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:19:08 +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 IAA04040 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:22:11 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 07:57:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:09:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/12/2001 08:03:14 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk O. P. Me South West North East Pass Pass Pass 1C Pass 1D 2NT At this point, East asked my occasional partner about the meaning of 2NT. Partner correctly responded *No agreement*. But is my occasional partner required to be more specific? (1) In all my regular partnerships, I play 2NT in this sequence as a weak 5/5 in the majors. Has this created L75C partnership experience with my occasional partner? (2) If the general answer to Question (1) is No, what if my occasional partner had been at the table as an opponent, when I perpetrated a 2NT call in an identical sequence with a regular partner? Has this created L75C partnership experience with my occasional partner? (3) If the general answer to Question (2) is Yes, what if my occasional partner had forgotten being at the table as my opponent? Does L75C partnership experience with my occasional partner still exist? 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 Dec 4 08:33:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3LXcL01952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:33:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3LXXH01948 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:33:33 +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 QAA16052 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA24960 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:26:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:26:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112032126.QAA24960@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= > After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, > ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer I agree with earlier answers unless there are additional facts. As a matter of procedure, it is probably better to look at the opponents' convention card rather than asking, and better to look at the CC or ask questions before playing from dummy, but declarer certainly has a right to know the defensive agreements. P.S. Please limit line length to 72 characters, and turn off HTML attachments. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 08:34:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3LYCC01964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:34:12 +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 fB3LY7H01960 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:34:07 +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 QAA16156 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA24965 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:27:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:27:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112032127.QAA24965@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > (1) In all my regular > partnerships, I play 2NT in > this sequence as a weak 5/5 in > the majors. Has this created > L75C partnership experience > with my occasional partner? If your occasional partner knows this fact, I cannot imagine failing to disclose it to the opponents. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 08:44:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3LhoT01983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:43:50 +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 fB3LhjH01979 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:43:46 +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 IAA06646 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:46:48 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:22:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:33:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/12/2001 08:27:50 AM 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 fB3LhkH01980 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I'd ask some questions first, but it sounds like >I will discover that had N been told that high >was encouraging, he would have played the H4. >That's certainly a "bridge reason" for the >question, whether or not you think it's a good >one.  Moreover, I don't see how the question >itself (as opposed to the play of the H9) could >be considered potentially deceptive; surely E >would be more, not less, likely to be fooled by >the play of the H9 had N not asked about the E-W >signals before playing it.  So I expect I would >rule "result stands" unless I learned something >truly unexpected. We [Sean Mullamphy (Canberra CTD) and myself] disagree. In order to avoid L73F2 coming into play, Declarer should have asked about EW defensive carding at the appropriate time - before playing from dummy at trick one. When declarer asked _after_ East's play, EW could draw the incorrect inference that declarer had strength in hearts. 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 Dec 4 08:58:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3LwSZ04917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:58:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3LwLH04889 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:58:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-142-241.arcor-ip.net [212.144.142.241]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 34CC63A119 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:33:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <02ca01c17c42$e20d6920$0a9490d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129142051.00ac2a50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards query Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:38:19 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 > 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. But you can cross to the HQ, cash the SA, and run the CQ. 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 Dec 4 09:08:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3M8MF07277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:08:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3M8CH07242 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:08:17 +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 fB3M19311933 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:01:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011203160206.00a0c6c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:02:16 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:09 AM 12/4/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >O. P. Me >South West North East >Pass Pass Pass 1C >Pass 1D 2NT > >At this point, East asked my >occasional partner about the >meaning of 2NT. Partner >correctly responded *No >agreement*. > >But is my occasional partner >required to be more specific? > >(1) In all my regular >partnerships, I play 2NT in >this sequence as a weak 5/5 in >the majors. Has this created >L75C partnership experience >with my occasional partner? If he knows this, yes. [Or, I would say, it has probably created an implicit agreement.] If he doesn't know this, then it can't be partnership experience, IMHO. >(2) If the general answer to >Question (1) is No, what if my >occasional partner had been at >the table as an opponent, when I >perpetrated a 2NT call in an >identical sequence with a >regular partner? Has this >created L75C partnership >experience with my occasional >partner? See below. >(3) If the general answer to >Question (2) is Yes, what if my >occasional partner had forgotten >being at the table as my >opponent? Does L75C partnership >experience with my occasional >partner still exist? Yes, but it probably doesn't matter. If partner has personal evidence from past experience with your play [as partner, opponent, kibbitzer, whatever] that allows him to have reason to guess what your bid means, then it is an implicit agreement [in the absence of any other agreement] or partnership experience and must be disclosed. If he has no such experience, then how you have bid in the past is irrelevant--_he_ just has to guess what your bid means by using general bridge knowledge equally available to anybody. If he has forgotten, then he does not possess such knowledge, and no-one can be legally required to disclose knowledge one doesn't have. Of course, I would have sympathy for a TD who was shown proof that OP had seen you bid this way before and then didn't accept OP's claim to have forgotten. I doubt if I would rule against OP in these circumstances, but I could understand it. >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 Tue Dec 4 09:16:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3MGHd08346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:16:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3MGBH08342 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:16:12 +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 fB3M9C611361; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:09:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:04:18 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, richard.hills@immi.gov.au X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20011203170913-R01010800-60cdb65b-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 12/4/01 at 8:09 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > O. P. Me > South West North East > Pass Pass Pass 1C > Pass 1D 2NT > > At this point, East asked my > occasional partner about the > meaning of 2NT. Partner > correctly responded *No > agreement*. > > But is my occasional partner > required to be more specific? > > (1) In all my regular > partnerships, I play 2NT in > this sequence as a weak 5/5 in > the majors. Has this created > L75C partnership experience > with my occasional partner? IMO, no, not generally. For one thing, he'd have to be aware that you have that agreement, and that you have it with all your partners. > (2) If the general answer to > Question (1) is No, what if my > occasional partner had been at > the table as an opponent, when I > perpetrated a 2NT call in an > identical sequence with a > regular partner? Has this > created L75C partnership > experience with my occasional > partner? One time? No. > (3) If the general answer to > Question (2) is Yes, what if my > occasional partner had forgotten > being at the table as my > opponent? Does L75C partnership > experience with my occasional > partner still exist? This, IMO, is where it gets difficult. If he doesn't remember, then he has no obligation to say anything (how can he?), but a TD might rule that he had sufficient experience (assuming the TD knew how much he had) of your methods that an implicit agreement exists. Life's tough sometimes. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 09:29:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3MSdE08362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:28:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB3MSYH08358 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:28:34 +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 OAA19952; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:21:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200112032221.OAA19952@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:02:16 CST." <5.1.0.14.1.20011203160206.00a0c6c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:21:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > If he has forgotten, then he does not possess > such knowledge, and no-one can be legally required to > disclose knowledge one doesn't have. Well, yes they can. If you've forgotten your own system, you can still be legally required to disclose knowledge that you (if only momentarily) do not possess---and failure to do so can result in an adjusted score and/or penalties. However, I think you're right as regards the case under discussion. -- 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 Dec 4 09:57:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB3MvdY08412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:57:39 +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 fB3MvYH08408 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:57:35 +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 RAA27637 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA25226 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:50:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:50:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112032250.RAA25226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > We [Sean Mullamphy (Canberra CTD) and myself] > disagree. In order to avoid L73F2 coming into > play, Declarer should have asked about EW > defensive carding at the appropriate time - before > playing from dummy at trick one. I'm curious about the "could have known" part of 73F2. How is asking after RHO's play more deceptive than asking earlier? Also, I'm curious about "no demonstrable bridge reason." While I would agree that a nebulous "wondering which card would be more deceptive" is not a valid bridge reason, here there is a clear connection between the defensive signalling methods and the card to be played. (Are you aware that your mailer puts the invalid address 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au' into the To: field of your message?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 13:22:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB42LJM10661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:21:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB42LDH10657 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:21:14 +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 fB42EGB22912 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:14:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007f01c17c69$02362e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203111210.00a9c210@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:03:52 -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: "Eric Landau" > > > Previous threads, though, have established that I tend to give less > weight to the words "for the class of player involved" than most > BLMLers, so I won't be surprised to find myself in a minority on this > point. Count me on your side. Over here we don't like the word "class," and have neither an objective measurement of it nor any way to know what a particular member of a class would or would not do under given circumstances. > I anticipate disagreement with those who will argue that > discarding the HK would be irrational for the (one-person) "class of > player" who would never do so. No doubt. We should aim for the same ruling for the same situation, regardless of who the players are, mainly because we often don't know who they are. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 13:35:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB42ZFf10674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB42Z9H10670 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:35:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-34-125.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.34.125] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16B5Ja-0003YR-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 02:28:10 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c17c6b$79e85a20$7d22e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "=?Windows-1252?Q?'Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n'?=" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:19:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "'Hans-Olof Hallén'" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: law 82C -------------- \x/ ------------------ > As far as possible I do agree. But since we do not play > matchpoints nor cross imps or butler that comparison > is quite remote. At 37 tables NS bid 4 spades and > make 12 tricks and only at my table they bid 6 and > make. Is this a fair comparison with the other teams > in the event? No sir, but that is not the aim of this > match, we want to know who scores better in your > match only. > +=+ But the laws say otherwise. Adjusted scores need not balance. Only in head to head matches is the imbalance to be resolved. (Laws 12C1, 12C2, and 86B). When the match is not head-to-head each team is to carry forward its own score to the final accumulation of scores. This was the subject of committee discussion in 1985/6, and it did tie in as a matter of principle with the refusal to let a team appeal a ruling (and so an adjustment) in a match where it was not involved. Further, the imbalance does not merely arise from +3/+3 (or indeed +3/+0) - it may perhaps be +650 / +100. +=+ > > It does not get a fair comparison if you shave off part of the > > score which it should fairly receive. > > This sentence doesn't have any 'working' meaning since it is > trivial. Only when we define 'fairly' here it might become useful. > +=+ I am sorry you think it 'trivial', perhaps you have a particular meaning in mind for this word. We did however conclude that the priority must be to give each team involved in an adjustment a fair comparison, separately in its own right, with the field ('fair' = as the laws prescribe). To me that appears a decision of substance. +=+ > And my approach is, especially looking at the other teams, that it > is not fair to divide 40 VP's between two teams where the others > have 30 available. > +=+ Yes, I understand this is your approach. It re-opens the same debate experienced in drafting the 1987 laws. Maybe sentiment will have changed sixteen years on, but for the time being it remains my view that teams that are innocent should not be disadvantaged against the field by denial of the right of each to the score reflecting the most favourable result for it that was likely, or where no result can be obtained a plus swing on the board that is not offset by the opponents' plus swing on the same board. ~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 Dec 4 16:44:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB45hWQ17954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:43:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB45hPH17950 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:43:26 +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 FAA23554 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:36:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:34:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> <001101c17b82$bedcf080$9856063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Rainsford writes >At 7:27 pm +0000 2/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>Grattan Endicott>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>" If 50% of cheats are losers, what is the >>point of cheating?" - Danny Blanchflower. >> >> >>+ + + + + + + + + + + >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Gordon Rainsford" >>To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >>"Marvin L. French" ; >>"Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 4:47 PM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims >> >> >>> >At 2:06 am +0000 1/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> > > >>> It would be interesting to hear what you were >>> aiming at with this, because I agree with you >>> that it does seem to need refinement. >>> >>+=+ No specific aim other than to open up >>discussion in the subcommittee about the >>possible solutions. The thinking is tentative, >>around the idea that only unambiguous >>simple claims should be invited, and >reaches no conclusions. ~ G ~ +=+ > > >Perhaps "simple" is the problem. That would inevitably lead to >logical claims having to be disallowed. Insisting on unambiguous >claims seems fine, with the benefit of any doubt given against >inadequate claimers, but surely the main problems in practice in this >area have only just been introduced at the last Laws revision? > Claims have always been ruled pretty much the same since I've been directing ... perhaps our interpretation has changed - although I don't think I've moved from my position in, say, 1984. regards 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 Dec 4 17:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB46vMn27960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:57:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB46vGH27934 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:57:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0898.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.149.133] helo=c1r5i8) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16B9PF-0005xv-00; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:50:17 -0800 Message-ID: <003901c17c8f$ef8198e0$8595b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" Cc: "Marvin L. French" References: <000901c17c1f$27042ce0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Interim Interpretations of the Laws Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:50:16 -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 Marv, Thx for this and all your other msgs relating to ACBL Laws, Alerts, and Conventions practices. Much appreciated by us fellow-ACBLers. Keep up the good work. Sorry I didn't get to Vegas to meet you and the other BLMLers there. Tom Wood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:22 AM Subject: [BLML] Interim Interpretations of the Laws > The ACBL LC has officially adopted a procedure that I have recommended > for years (but I doubt they did it on my account): > > If a TD needs help with an interpretation of the Laws, two members of > the LC will constitute a quorom for that case only. If they have to come > up with something new, it must be submitted to the LC for confirmation > at the next LC meeting (at an NABC, usually). Such interim > interpretation cannot be applied generally until it is approved. > > This replaces the unofficial and undocumented procedure that has been > possible previously, and is a very welcome change. One further step > remains: The ACBL LC should in turn submit its interpretations to the > WBF LC for approval, since the latter has sole authority for > interpreting the Laws. Don't hold your breath until that happens. > > When announcing this policy, Ralph Cohen (who is looking great after > apparently overcoming health problems) added that LC interpetations > should represent a consensus, not a majority opinion. I haven't noticed > any dissenters on the WBF LC, although some assenters seem reluctant, so > perhaps that body has the same unwritten law. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 20:15:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB49EZo03310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:14:35 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fB49ETH03306 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:14:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-30-151.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.30.151] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16BBVc-000Ocp-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:05:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c17ca3$4332ca00$971ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203111210.00a9c210@127.0.0.1> <007f01c17c69$02362e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:06:29 -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 Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:03 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim > > > Count me on your side. Over here we don't like the word "class," > and have neither an objective measurement of it nor any way > to know what a particular member of a class would or would > not do under given circumstances. > +=+ As one who is long on record with a personal opinion that irrationality should not be qualified by 'class of player', I find this statement somewhat mystifying. It was the initiative and advocacy of ACBL members that introduced the concept of 'class of player' to the footnote originally, and when 'clarification' decreed recently that 'class of player' extended to irrationality there was no shortage of ACBL members amongst those who made the decision. So 'over here' means what? I do not know ton's personal opinion on the point, but a desire to include irrationality amongst aspects governed by 'class of player' is not something I associate with European attitudes generally. My own opinion is supported by a wariness that we should not have distinctions in the laws that allow players partnered by customers to seek advantages for themselves at the expense of those who play the game purely for pleasure. ~ 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 Dec 4 21:54:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4ApAm03346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:51:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB4Ap4H03342 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:51:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA09960; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:44:05 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Dec 04 11:41:27 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 <01KBGWBIRODI002E2W@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:43:04 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:43:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:43:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws Discussion 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 Marvin: > > Count me on your side. Over here we don't like the word "class," > > and have neither an objective measurement of it nor any way > > to know what a particular member of a class would or would > > not do under given circumstances. > > > +=+ As one who is long on record with a personal opinion that > irrationality should not be qualified by 'class of player', I find > this statement somewhat mystifying. It was the initiative and > advocacy of ACBL members that introduced the concept of > 'class of player' to the footnote originally, and when > 'clarification' decreed recently that 'class of player' extended > to irrationality there was no shortage of ACBL members > amongst those who made the decision. So 'over here' means > what? I do not know ton's personal opinion on the point, We did speak about it though. Trying to understand what the footnote means I have tried the following, logical aproach. A player may execute bad play. And given the laws we seem to be able to distinguish between careless, inferior on one side and irrational on the other. If irrational is the same for everybody but careless, inferior is not then we have to deal with some play we can't put a label on, bad but not in one of the two categories. Therefore my conclusion is that introducing 'class of player' for careless/inferior has as a consequence to do the same for irrational. An example: AK874 opposite Q963. Let us assume that blocking the suit is deemed careless for a mediocre player, but will not happen when Hamman plays the hand (let us not discuss this these, I'll find another example). Then how do we call playing A and 3 and then K and 6 by Hamman? Irrational, isn't it? If we do not want 'irrational' depending on the class of player then the consequence is to make careless/inferior independent as well. I don't mind, not being a player of the class of Hamman. but > a desire to include irrationality amongst aspects governed > by 'class of player' is not something I associate with > European attitudes generally. > My own opinion is supported by a wariness that we > should not have distinctions in the laws that allow players > partnered by customers to seek advantages for themselves > at the expense of those who play the game purely for > pleasure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well, isn't that the definition of pro and client? Does this mean that you want the distinction for careless/inferior removed as well? Seems consequent to me. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 23:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4C2hY06511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:02:43 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB4C2bH06507 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:02:38 +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 MAA26069; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:52:21 +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 MAA01884; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:55:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011204125219.00ac1e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:56:44 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Cc: In-Reply-To: <006c01c17c2f$7ec918e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203132330.00abcec0@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 11:10 3/12/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Anyway, I think it >should be a regulation (which are widely applied loosely), not a change >in the Laws. > >"Players are encouraged not to claim until one hand contains all the >claimed tricks, or the remainder of the tricks can be won with a >cross-ruff using high trumps." AG : what about : "Players are encouraged not to claim unless they could state in at most n words how they intend to play" ? (n could be 5, 7, 10 according to how restrictive you want to be), possibly accompanied by "longer statements will be considered de facto as imprecise" This would include statements like : - my hand is high - crossruffig, master trump for you - high diamonds from my hand first (in the case unblocking the suit is necessary) - Ace and reach dummy with a club etc. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 4 23:38:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4CbVJ10017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:37:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB4CbPH10000 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:37:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.35.15.110] (helo=[217.35.15.110]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16BEiH-0006C8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:30:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111301715.JAA17950@mailhub.irvine.com> <005101c179cb$5bb9a6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004701c17a0d$38ab52c0$8b487bd5@dodona> <001101c17b82$bedcf080$9856063e@dodona> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:28:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:34 am +0000 4/12/01, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , Gordon Rainsford > writes >>At 7:27 pm +0000 2/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>Grattan Endicott>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>" If 50% of cheats are losers, what is the >>>point of cheating?" - Danny Blanchflower. >>> >>> >>>+ + + + + + + + + + + >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Gordon Rainsford" >>>To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >>>"Marvin L. French" ; >>>"Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 4:47 PM >>>Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims >>> >>> >>>> >At 2:06 am +0000 1/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>> > > >>>> It would be interesting to hear what you were >>>> aiming at with this, because I agree with you >>>> that it does seem to need refinement. >>>> >>>+=+ No specific aim other than to open up >>>discussion in the subcommittee about the >>>possible solutions. The thinking is tentative, >>>around the idea that only unambiguous >>>simple claims should be invited, and >>reaches no conclusions. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> >>Perhaps "simple" is the problem. That would inevitably lead to >>logical claims having to be disallowed. Insisting on unambiguous >>claims seems fine, with the benefit of any doubt given against >>inadequate claimers, but surely the main problems in practice in this >>area have only just been introduced at the last Laws revision? >> >Claims have always been ruled pretty much the same since I've been >directing ... perhaps our interpretation has changed - although I >don't think I've moved from my position in, say, 1984. > regards john Weren't the words "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" added to 70E? -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 5 01:27:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4EQNq20906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:26:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB4EQHH20902 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:26:18 +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 fB4EJHP25224 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:19:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011204091029.00b36680@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:21:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Fwd: 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 05:43 AM 12/4/01, Kooijman wrote: >We did speak about it though. Trying to understand what the footnote >means I >have tried the following, logical aproach. A player may execute bad play. >And given the laws we seem to be able to distinguish between careless, >inferior on one side and irrational on the other. If irrational is the >same >for everybody but careless, inferior is not then we have to deal with some >play we can't put a label on, bad but not in one of the two categories. The label Ton is looking for is "normal", in the dictionary sense, which is not the same as "'normal' [, which] includes play that would be careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- which is why TFLB needs the footnote, to establish that "normal" in L69-71 is *not* being used in its usual sense. >Therefore my conclusion is that introducing 'class of player' for >careless/inferior has as a consequence to do the same for irrational. >An example: AK874 opposite Q963. Let us assume that blocking the suit is >deemed careless for a mediocre player, but will not happen when Hamman >plays >the hand (let us not discuss this these, I'll find another example). Then >how do we call playing A and 3 and then K and 6 by Hamman? Irrational, >isn't >it? No. Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" for Mrs. Guggenheim, while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, careless. But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal" for Mr. Hamman as well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that would be careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or that wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player. This reading is totally consistent with the notion that "irrational" is the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and Mr. Hamman. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 5 02:19:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4FJDw24898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:19:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB4FJ7H24879 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:19:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA27653; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:12:07 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Dec 04 16:09:24 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 <01KBH5OB2P8W002EGD@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:11:28 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:11:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:11:23 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion 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 > > At 05:43 AM 12/4/01, Kooijman wrote: > > >We did speak about it though. Trying to understand what the footnote > >means I > >have tried the following, logical aproach. A player may > execute bad play. > >And given the laws we seem to be able to distinguish between > careless, > >inferior on one side and irrational on the other. If > irrational is the > >same > >for everybody but careless, inferior is not then we have to > deal with some > >play we can't put a label on, bad but not in one of the two > categories. > > The label Ton is looking for is "normal", in the dictionary sense, > which is not the same as "'normal' [, which] includes play that would > be careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- which is > why TFLB needs the footnote, to establish that "normal" in L69-71 is > *not* being used in its usual sense. > > >Therefore my conclusion is that introducing 'class of player' for > >careless/inferior has as a consequence to do the same for irrational. > >An example: AK874 opposite Q963. Let us assume that blocking > the suit is > >deemed careless for a mediocre player, but will not happen > when Hamman > >plays > >the hand (let us not discuss this these, I'll find another > example). Then > >how do we call playing A and 3 and then K and 6 by Hamman? > Irrational, > >isn't > >it? > > No. Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" for Mrs. > Guggenheim, > while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, > careless. But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal" for Mr. > Hamman as > well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that would be > careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or that > wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player. This is what I tried to avoid by using the words 'let us assume'. It is the logic or non-logic of my approach you should focus on, not the example. Once more: for careless we make a distinction in the class of players. So we say that it is possible that in identical situatons to assume a kind of play is normal (careless) for the mediocre but not normal for the good player. My question is how do we call it for the good player then? And I only can find the description 'irrational' for it, reading the footnote. So the distinction in playing careless implies the distinction in playing irrational. Q.E.D. Try to explain me once more where I go wrong. ton > > This reading is totally consistent with the notion that > "irrational" is > the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and Mr. Hamman. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 5 04:38:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4HbjQ29552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 04:37:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB4HbSH29493 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 04:37:40 +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 fB4HTkt11660; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:30:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011204112507.00a15d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:30:51 -0600 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 11/28/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >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 But this is why I was careful to specify that I was discussing my peers. With an expert partner, the likelihood that he has forgotten the system decreases, and the likelihood that he has invented an unusual and aggressive bid increases. I might pass in the sample auction, but I would do so with considerable trepidation. If my partner perpetrated this auction, even with no UI, I would pass in a heartbeat, and would wager my firstborn that he had forgotten. With a casual partnership with most of the players from my club [even the tournament-goers] I would have passed 5H without fear. 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 Dec 5 04:57:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4Hung02204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 04:56:49 +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 fB4HuhH02182 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 04:56:43 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB4HngP18038 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:49:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:49 +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: <4.3.2.7.1.20011204091029.00b36680@127.0.0.1> Following various discussions on this list I feel the word "irrational" is not particularly appropriate (at least as it is commonly interpreted). Personally I would prefer "The TD should include lines of play that are somewhat implausible but not those he considers bizarre or extremely unlikely". Taking AK872 opposite Q963 as my text. A good player will *instinctively* play small to the queen first (catering to the 4-0 break onside), and just as instinctively unblock the 9 on the second/third round. A good player might well forget to say "unblocking" exactly because it is so obvious. Although to be honest I wouldn't have a problem saying "Look Bob, against opponents of this calibre you really should be more careful with your claims." The position I want to avoid is one where the opponents, while perfectly competent, are the sort of slimy lowlife who would raise a technical objection even though they believed that Bob would get it right. If a TD is forced to rule in favour of scum it will surely be bad for the game. A lesser player would also start with low to the queen but *might* forget to unblock the 9 unless spades *are* 4-0 onside. Lesser players will tend to say "unblocking" if they have spotted the problem. Mrs Guggenheim might start with the A, she might forget to unblock but who the hell cares. Mrs Guggenheim doesn't claim in this position because "the director always takes her tricks away" if she tries. Guidance to TDs (as some SOs are starting to provide) in the form of In general: Assume honours played from short hand first, Assume suits played top down, Assume trumps played last goes a long way towards getting consistent rulings in the majority of cases. 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 Dec 5 05:16:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4IGTA06183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:16:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB4IGNH06168 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:16:23 +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 fB4I9Om02962 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:09:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002201c17cee$b6e4e780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c17b1e$50c4e1c0$b28f90d4@rabbit> <001a01c17b82$72ff8d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018a01c17c28$04537940$0a9490d4@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:08:41 -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: "Thomas Dehn" > > Marvin wrote: > > > Maybe you missed the point. > The bidding began > > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > > > P-P-2S > Including the 2S bid, everything was fine, no UI was passed. > > You cannot remove the 2S bid from the bidding, it > already happened. Whether there now > is a subsequent irregularity or not, the > bidding already began with > > > > 1C-P-1S-P > > > > 1NT-P-P-2D > > > > P-P-2S > and playing in 2D is not 'likely' after > 2S has already been bid. Yes, not at all probable. > > The TD might possibly adjust to 3D (making > whatever tricks that makes), but not to 2D. Okay, so the most unfavorable result that was at all probable would evidently have to occur after the irregularity, but would not necessarily be one that was related to it ("had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the NOS only, I'm told). I'm still looking for a good example of an OS adjustment that satisfies the condition of being unrelated to the irregularity even though the adjustment was occasioned by it. I guess your 3D projection does that, but it would be good to see an example from real life. I don't remember ever seeing one. 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 Dec 5 05:58:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4IuhF06615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:56:43 +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 fB4IucH06611 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:56:38 +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 fB4Indm23831 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:49:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003b01c17cf4$55460080$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203111210.00a9c210@127.0.0.1> <007f01c17c69$02362e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001701c17ca3$4332ca00$971ee150@dodona> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:48:51 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > Count me on your side. Over here we don't like the word "class," > > and have neither an objective measurement of it nor any way > > to know what a particular member of a class would or would > > not do under given circumstances. > > > +=+ As one who is long on record with a personal opinion that > irrationality should not be qualified by 'class of player', I find > this statement somewhat mystifying. It was the initiative and > advocacy of ACBL members that introduced the concept of > 'class of player' to the footnote originally, and when > 'clarification' decreed recently that 'class of player' extended > to irrationality there was no shortage of ACBL members > amongst those who made the decision. Some of us feel that the original footnote was added merely to point out that even strong players can make careless or inferior plays that may be assumed in the absence of an adequate claim statement, not that plays irrational for strong players may be assumed for weak players. > So 'over here' means > what? I do not know ton's personal opinion on the point, but > a desire to include irrationality amongst aspects governed > by 'class of player' is not something I associate with > European attitudes generally. I am very glad to know that. I plead guilty to being unfair and jumping to an unjustified conclusion if the recent change to the claims footnote (moving the comma, which made "irrational" dependent on the class of player) did not originate "over there." I thought it did, coming from the WBFLC. It is indeed the ACBL AC organization that seems to be the strongest advocate for "class of player" considerations. Its spokesman goes so far as to say that the "class of player" language in the claims footnotes means that this principle may be extended to all Laws. > My own opinion is supported by a wariness that we > should not have distinctions in the laws that allow players > partnered by customers to seek advantages for themselves > at the expense of those who play the game purely for > pleasure. Such as the contemplated modification to L20F1 (to permit the questioning of individual calls), which would allow the illegal "pro question" to operate more easily. 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 Dec 5 06:17:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB4JGrU06638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 06:16:53 +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 fB4JGlH06634 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 06:16:48 +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 fB4J9nm01280 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:09:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006b01c17cf7$256ab100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:00:40 -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: > > > Count me on your side. Over here we don't like the word "class," > > > and have neither an objective measurement of it nor any way > > > to know what a particular member of a class would or would > > > not do under given circumstances. > > > > > > +=+ As one who is long on record with a personal opinion that > > irrationality should not be qualified by 'class of player', I find > > this statement somewhat mystifying. It was the initiative and > > advocacy of ACBL members that introduced the concept of > > 'class of player' to the footnote originally, and when > > 'clarification' decreed recently that 'class of player' extended > > to irrationality there was no shortage of ACBL members > > amongst those who made the decision. So 'over here' means > > what? I do not know ton's personal opinion on the point, > > > We did speak about it though. Trying to understand what the footnote means I > have tried the following, logical aproach. A player may execute bad play. > And given the laws we seem to be able to distinguish between careless, > inferior on one side and irrational on the other. If irrational is the same > for everybody but careless, inferior is not then we have to deal with some > play we can't put a label on, bad but not in one of the two categories. > Therefore my conclusion is that introducing 'class of player' for > careless/inferior has as a consequence to do the same for irrational. > An example: AK874 opposite Q963. Let us assume that blocking the suit is > deemed careless for a mediocre player, but will not happen when Hamman plays > the hand (let us not discuss this these, I'll find another example). Then > how do we call playing A and 3 and then K and 6 by Hamman? Irrational, isn't > it? > > If we do not want 'irrational' depending on the class of player then the > consequence is to make careless/inferior independent as well. Yea, a logical conclusion. Eliminate the "class of player" words from the footnotes. > > I don't mind, not being a player of the class of Hamman. > > > but > > a desire to include irrationality amongst aspects governed > > by 'class of player' is not something I associate with > > European attitudes generally. > > My own opinion is supported by a wariness that we > > should not have distinctions in the laws that allow players > > partnered by customers to seek advantages for themselves > > at the expense of those who play the game purely for > > pleasure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Well, isn't that the definition of pro and client? > Does this mean that you want the distinction for careless/inferior removed > as well? Seems consequent to me. > To me also. 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 Dec 5 12:12:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB51B9w06817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:11:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (mta05bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB51B5H06813 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:11:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from cbcnew ([144.135.24.69]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GNUJ9Z00.4C8; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:10:47 +1000 Received: from 203.40.245.179 ([203.40.245.179]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8311/22128817); 05 Dec 2001 11:03:56 From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: RE: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:05:39 +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) In-Reply-To: <200112032126.QAA24960@cfa183.harvard.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all My point when discussing this situation with Richards Hills was that deceptive manouvres by declarer should not be aided by the use of questions. Questions always add doubt to the minds of defenders and as you are trying to deceive you cannot give yourself this added edge. The question (and its timing) may imply that declarer is considering ducking or winning the opening lead. The fact that declarer did not play the correct card to deceive isn't relevent. The question was foremost in the mind of the defender and aided in the misdefence. Sean Mullamphy Canberra. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2001 7:27 AM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 > From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= > After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, > ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer I agree with earlier answers unless there are additional facts. As a matter of procedure, it is probably better to look at the opponents' convention card rather than asking, and better to look at the CC or ask questions before playing from dummy, but declarer certainly has a right to know the defensive agreements. P.S. Please limit line length to 72 characters, and turn off HTML attachments. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 5 13:07:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB526hE06845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:06:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB526bH06841 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:06:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-34-94-219.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.94.219]) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16BRLT-0000hp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 01:59:35 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:59:33 +0000 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: RE: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:05 pm +1100 5/12/01, Canberra Bridge Club wrote: >Hi all > >My point when discussing this situation with Richards Hills was that >deceptive manouvres by declarer should not be aided by the use of >questions. Questions always add doubt to the minds of defenders >and as you are trying to deceive you cannot give yourself this >added edge. The question (and its timing) may imply that declarer >is considering ducking or winning the opening lead. The fact that >declarer did not play the correct card to deceive isn't relevent. >The question was foremost in the mind of the defender and aided in >the misdefence. > >Sean Mullamphy >Canberra. The question didn't aid the deceptive manoeuvre, it could have given it away. -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 5 18:27:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB57Qjx27111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:26:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB57QbH27107 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:26:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-6-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.6.97] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16BWL8-000IPb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 07:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c17d5d$5aff5d00$6106e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011204091029.00b36680@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 07:20:05 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim > > No. Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" for Mrs. Guggenheim, > while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, > careless. But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal" for Mr. Hamman as > well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that would be > careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or that > wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player. > > This reading is totally consistent with the notion that "irrational" is > the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and Mr. Hamman. > +=+ This is close to where where I was standing when the WBFLC told me to adopt the current interpretation. I must add that I do not 'want' any particular future for this footnote - I do think the current interpretation is inferior, but not irrational. I think it is yet another item for discussion when the subcommittee gets to grips with the review. Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, for the class of player, careless". ~ 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 Dec 5 19:23:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB58MiB04165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:22:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk ([195.188.53.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB58MbH04148 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:22:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from pcow058m.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:15:36 +0000 Received: from mikeamos (unverified) by pcow058m.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:15:35 +0000 Message-ID: <002201c17d65$301c1440$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:16:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C17D65.2FE9B9A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C17D65.2FE9B9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: mike amos=20 To: =E0=E9=EC=EF =F9=E6=E9=F4=E9=20 Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. I disagree with Marvin's opinion Here in England there is established case law that deals with situations = in which a defender claims that he was considering which of small cards = to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer=20 So if declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ and a defender with Q82 = pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, perhaps e.g. to = encourage or discourage another suit (Smith Peters), we would not = consider this a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation in this = position and if declarer misguessed the A we would adjust in his favour = - all other things being equal So in England I would rule that the question and tempo variation of = declarer had damaged the defender and adjust in the defenders' favour = quoting this case law=20 Now it's possible that an Appeals Committee might decide that in this = case East had just been dim and deserved no redress - I could be = persuaded down that line or they could decide that 73F2, didn't apply in this case, in which case = I think the Law in its current form is inadequate and I would forward = the case to Grattan for his consideration=20 mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: =E0=E9=EC=EF =F9=E6=E9=F4=E9=20 To: BLML BLML=20 Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 10:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E = AKT6 = T94 = AJ74 = JT Q8 = J754 K86 = AQJ52 6 = 52 KQ98742 = 53 = 932 = 73 = KQT983 = A6=20 =20 E = S W N =20 2D(1) = 3D Pass 3NT =20 Pass = Pass Pass (1) =3D Weak, = both Majors After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, = ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer that low =3D encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next = trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was = called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any = Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according = to law 73.F.2. What is your opinion ? =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Ilan Shezifi Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com Tel : +972-3-7398288 Mobile : +972-54-420406 = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C17D65.2FE9B9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: mike amos=20
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 73.F.2.

I disagree with Marvin's opinion
 
Here in England there is established case law that = deals with=20 situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which = of =20 small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer
 
So if declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ and = a defender=20 with Q82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, perhaps e.g. = to=20 encourage or discourage another suit (Smith Peters), we would not = consider this=20 a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation in this position = and if=20 declarer misguessed the A  we would adjust in his favour - all = other=20 things  being equal
 
So in England I would rule that the question and = tempo=20 variation of declarer had damaged the defender and adjust in the = defenders'=20 favour quoting this case law
 
Now it's possible that an Appeals Committee might = decide that=20 in this case East had just been dim and deserved no redress - I could be = persuaded down that line
 
or they could decide that 73F2, didn't apply in this = case, in=20 which case I think the Law in its current form is inadequate=20 and I would forward the case to Grattan for his consideration=20
 
 
mike
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 =E0=E9=EC=EF = =F9=E6=E9=F4=E9
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 = 10:14=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] Law = 73.F.2.

In the Israeli first = league, a=20 match with 4 international players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, = Dealer -=20 E
 
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;       =20 AKT6
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        T94
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        AJ74<= /DIV>
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;       =20 JT
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;       =20 =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;      Q8     &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           =20 J754
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;          =20 =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;   K86        =             &= nbsp;       =20 AQJ52
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ; =20 =             &= nbsp;           =20 = 6            =             &= nbsp;       =20 52
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 =             &= nbsp;        =20 = KQ98742           =           53
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        =20 932
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         73
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        =20 KQT983
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        =20 A6 
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;   =20   
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =        E    &nb= sp;           =20 = S            =      =20 = W            =     N          
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =        2D(1)         =    3D         = ;    =20 =   Pass         &nb= sp; 3NT          &= nbsp;      
   =20 =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           =20 = Pass           &nb= sp;Pass           =  Pass
 
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =       =20 (1) =3D Weak, both=20 Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H = from E,=20 W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask about the signals E-W = use, and=20 after the answer
that  low =3D = encouraging,=20 North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next trick 5-Cl and the = declarer=20 made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was called to the table by E-W, = they=20 have told him that North don't have any Bridge reason to ask and ask = the=20 director to adjust the score according to law=20 73.F.2.
 
 What is your = opinion=20 ?
         &nb= sp; =20
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
Ilan=20 Shezifi
Email : shezifi@bigfoot.com
Tel :=20 +972-3-7398288
Mobile :=20 = +972-54-420406
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C17D65.2FE9B9A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 5 19:24:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB58O8m04448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:24:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB58O2H04444 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:24:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA10678; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:17:01 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 05 09:14:19 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 <01KBI5HAWL0Y002FD8@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:16:36 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:16:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:16:34 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , 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 > Taking AK872 opposite Q963 as my text. > > A good player will *instinctively* play small to the queen > first (catering > to the 4-0 break onside), and just as instinctively unblock > the 9 on the > second/third round. This is a perfect example of the mess we keep making in our discussions. Irrational we might call them. I tried to say that from a logical point of view it is impossible to apply the laws with careless/inferior play depending on the class of players and irrational play not. That leads to contradictions. And I used an example which had nothing to do with the proof itself. Then I asked you to concentrate on that proof. Nobody does: 'let us ignore it, we might need to agree with him if we don't'. In stead some attack the example. Gentlemen, I remove the example and still maintain my arguments. Try again. The consequence of my proof is that if we want 'irrational' to be independent of the class of players, and I don't see why we couldn't, careless/inferior play should be as well. Or the whole concept needs to be reviewed adding something more. The OESO just came with a report that mathematical education in highschool in the Netherlands is the best in the world. Having a fair impression about it I had my doubts, but less at the moment. And Marvin, don't be too surprised by the ACBL statement that 'class of player' could be included in more laws. It already is. 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 Dec 6 00:16:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5DF3Q05970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:15:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5DEvH05966 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:14:58 +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 fB5D7tK64560 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:07:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@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, 05 Dec 2001 08:10:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Fwd: 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 10:11 AM 12/4/01, Kooijman wrote: > > No. Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" for Mrs. > > Guggenheim, > > while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, > > careless. But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal" for Mr. > > Hamman as > > well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that would be > > careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or that > > wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player. > >This is what I tried to avoid by using the words 'let us assume'. It >is the >logic or non-logic of my approach you should focus on, not the >example. Once >more: for careless we make a distinction in the class of players. So >we say >that it is possible that in identical situatons to assume a kind of >play is >normal (careless) for the mediocre but not normal for the good player. My >question is how do we call it for the good player then? And I only can >find >the description 'irrational' for it, reading the footnote. So the >distinction in playing careless implies the distinction in playing >irrational. Q.E.D. > >Try to explain me once more where I go wrong. Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a mediocre player, this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually careless; by the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for the class of player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational; irrationality does not come into the picture at all. 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 Dec 6 00:33:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5DXbC10130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:33:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5DXVH10117 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:33:32 +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 fB5DQUK65994 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:26:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205082452.00abd8d0@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, 05 Dec 2001 08:28:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <001b01c17d5d$5aff5d00$6106e150@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011204091029.00b36680@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 02:20 AM 12/5/01, Grattan wrote: > Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' >should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, >for the class of player, careless". This is exactly how I would choose to read the current footnote, except that I'd have used "may be" rather than "is", for the benefit of those who would interpret "irrational", "inferior" and "careless" in such a way that, for example, for a novice to miss a double squeeze would not be any of these. 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 Dec 6 00:50:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5Dnms13486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:49:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5DngH13482 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:49:43 +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 fB5Dgdi15463 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:42:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205083106.00b3f360@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, 05 Dec 2001 08:44:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. In-Reply-To: <002201c17d65$301c1440$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3150676==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_3150676==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 03:16 AM 12/5/01, mike wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: mike amos > >I disagree with Marvin's opinion > >Here in England there is established case law that deals with=20 >situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which=20 >of small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer > >So if declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ and a defender with=20 >Q82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, perhaps e.g. to=20 >encourage or discourage another suit (Smith Peters), we would not=20 >consider this a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation in this=20 >position and if declarer misguessed the A we would adjust in his=20 >favour - all other things being equal > >So in England I would rule that the question and tempo variation of=20 >declarer had damaged the defender and adjust in the defenders' favour=20 >quoting this case law > >Now it's possible that an Appeals Committee might decide that in this=20 >case East had just been dim and deserved no redress - I could be=20 >persuaded down that line > >or they could decide that 73F2, didn't apply in this case, in which=20 >case I think the Law in its current form is inadequate and I would=20 >forward the case to Grattan for his consideration I would agree with the above, but disagree that it is analogous to=20 Ilan's case. Imagine that declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ,=20 LHO with A82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, and=20 declarer misguesses to play the J and loses to the Q. I assume Mike=20 would not adjust in that case -- the same hesitation can't "deceive"=20 declarer into playing either the K or the J, whichever is wrong, so it=20 can't be right to adjust in both cases. A hesitation which will "lead=20 him wrong" in one case must perforce "lead him right" in the other. On Ilan's deal, the question is one that would be more likely to "lead=20 him [East] right". >----- Original Message ----- >From: =E0=E9=EC=EF =F9=E6=E9=F4=E9 >In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international players. > >Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E > >=20 >AKT6 >=20 >T94 >=20 >AJ74 >=20 >JT > Q8=20 > J754 > K86=20 > AQJ52 > 6=20 > 52 > KQ98742=20 > 53 >=20 >932 >=20 >73 >=20 >KQT983 >=20 >A6 > > E=20 > S W N > 2D(1)=20 > 3D Pass 3NT > Pass=20 > Pass Pass > > (1) =3D Weak, both=20 > Majors > >After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer,=20 >ask about the signals E-W use, and after the answer >that low =3D encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the next=20 >trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was=20 >called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have=20 >any Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score=20 >according to law 73.F.2. 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=20 --=====================_3150676==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 03:16 AM 12/5/01, mike wrote:
 
----- Original Message -----
From: mike amos

I disagree with Marvin's opinion
 
Here in England there is established case law that deals with situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which of  small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer
 
So if declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ and a defender with Q82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, perhaps e.g. to encourage or discourage another suit (Smith Peters), we would not consider this a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation in this position and if declarer misguessed the A  we would adjust in his favour - all other things  being equal
 
So in England I would rule that the question and tempo variation of declarer had damaged the defender and adjust in the defenders' favour quoting this case law
 
Now it's possible that an Appeals Committee might decide that in this case East had just been dim and deserved no redress - I could be persuaded down that line
 
or they could decide that 73F2, didn't apply in this case, in which case I think the Law in its current form is inadequate and I would forward the case to Grattan for his consideration

I would agree with the above, but disagree that it is analogous to Ilan's case.  Imagine that declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ, LHO with A82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, and declarer misguesses to play the J and loses to the Q.  I assume Mike would not adjust in that case -- the same hesitation can't "deceive" declarer into playing either the K or the J, whichever is wrong, so it can't be right to adjust in both cases.  A hesitation which will "lead him wrong" in one case must perforce "lead him right" in the other.

On Ilan's deal, the question is one that would be more likely to "lead him [East] right".

----- Original Message -----=20
From: =E0=E9=EC=EF =F9= =E6=E9=F4=E9
In the Israeli first league, a match with 4 international= players.
 
Board 26, Vul - all, Dealer - E
 
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;   AKT6
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;   T94
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;   AJ74
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;   JT
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =           = Q8            &= nbsp;            = ;     J754
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =           = K86            =             &nbs= p;    AQJ52
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =           = 6            &n= bsp;            =         52
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =           = KQ98742           &n= bsp;         53
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;    932
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;    73
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;    KQT983
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;    A6
            =             &nbs= p;  
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =   = E            &n= bsp;   = S            &n= bsp;    = W            &n= bsp;   N         =
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =    2D(1)         &nb= sp; = 3D            &= nbsp;  = Pass          = 3NT            =     
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =   = Pass           = Pass           = Pass
 
            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =    (1) =3D= Weak, both Majors
 
After the lead of Q-H from E, W played the 6-H, North, the declarer, ask= about the signals E-W use, and after the answer
that  low =3D encouraging, North play the 9-H, Now E lead to the= next trick 5-Cl and the declarer made 9 tricks, the tournament Director was= called to the table by E-W, they have told him that North don't have any= Bridge reason to ask and ask the director to adjust the score according to= law 73.F.2.

Eric= Landau           &nb= sp;         elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions,= Inc.            = ; elandau@acm.org
1107 Dale= Drive           &nbs= p;     (301) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3150676==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 00:51:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5Dp5A13498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:51:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5DoxH13494 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:51:00 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA03319; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:43:58 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 05 14:41:18 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 <01KBIGWKXWJE002FSI@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:43:30 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:43:26 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:43:24 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion 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 ton: > >Try to explain me once more where I go wrong. Eric > Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a > mediocre player, > this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually > careless; by > the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not > normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for > purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for > the class of > player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a > lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational; > irrationality does not come into the picture at all. > True but you work at the wrong side of the line. Assume a play which is careless for the mediocre player (we don't grant the claim) but not for the top player (we allow the claim). Then how do we call such play imagining the top player applies it? Yes, yes, try, come on, ........ 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 Dec 6 00:58:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5DvqT13510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:57:52 +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-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 fB5DvkH13506 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:57:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-131.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.131]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB5Dohs17773 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:50:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:38:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > This is a perfect example of the mess we keep making in our discussions. > Irrational we might call them. Yep. > I tried to say that from a logical point of view it is impossible to apply > the laws with careless/inferior play depending on the class of players and > irrational play not. That leads to contradictions. And I used an example > which had nothing to do with the proof itself. Then I asked you to > concentrate on that proof. Nobody does: 'let us ignore it, we might need to > agree with him if we don't'. In stead some attack the example. Gentlemen, I > remove the example and still maintain my arguments. Try again. > Ton's argument is so valid that I do see why no-one talks about it. It's simply true. Don't worry that some attack your example Ton, I'm sure they don't want to attack the principle (provided they have undersztood it). > The consequence of my proof is that if we want 'irrational' to be > independent of the class of players, and I don't see why we couldn't, > careless/inferior play should be as well. Or the whole concept needs to be > reviewed adding something more. > > The OESO just came with a report that mathematical education in highschool > in the Netherlands is the best in the world. Having a fair impression about > it I had my doubts, but less at the moment. > Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the highest in Europe. -- 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 Dec 6 01:20:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5EHH013532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:17:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5EHBH13528 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:17:11 +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 fB5EA8T23183 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:10:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205090241.00b3a5e0@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, 05 Dec 2001 09:12:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Fwd: 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 08:43 AM 12/5/01, Koojiman wrote: >Eric > > Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a > > mediocre player, > > this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually > > careless; by > > the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not > > normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for > > purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for > > the class of > > player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a > > lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational; > > irrationality does not come into the picture at all. > >True but you work at the wrong side of the line. >Assume a play which is careless for the mediocre player (we don't >grant the >claim) but not for the top player (we allow the claim). Then how do we >call >such play imagining the top player applies it? Yes, yes, try, come on, >........ It cannot be imagined, because it is a logical impossibility. A play which is careless for a lesser player must perforce be (even more) careless for a better one. In the former case it may be "a little bit careless or inferior" while in the latter is is "extremely careless or inferior", but it is nonetheless "careless or inferior" in both cases. What the footnote tells us is that we should not allow the claim in either case. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 01:28:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5ESWS13544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:28:32 +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 fB5ESRH13540 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:28:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-87-39.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.87.39] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16BcvN-000OUk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:21:26 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c17d97$ec5965e0$2757e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011203111210.00a9c210@127.0.0.1> <007f01c17c69$02362e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001701c17ca3$4332ca00$971ee150@dodona> <003b01c17cf4$55460080$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:10:29 -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 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 Discussion List" Sent: 04 December 2001 18:48 Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim > > > I plead guilty to being unfair and jumping to > an unjustified conclusion if the recent change > to the claims footnote (moving the comma, > which made "irrational" dependent on the > class of player) did not originate "over there." I thought it did, coming from the WBFLC. > +=+ Well, it is not a desperate matter who was there; it is a corporate decision, accepted even by those who 'live to fight another day'. But, for the record, present were 3 Europeans, 5 ACBL members, one New Zealander, and the WBF CTD (Schoder). Also, the change was to 'clarify' what was said to be already the intention. ~ 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 Dec 6 01:43:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5EhDw13561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:43:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5Eh6H13557 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:43:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA29379; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:36:06 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 05 15:33:28 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 <01KBIIPNJNF8002DHC@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:35:11 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:35:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:35:08 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim 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 ton: > > The OESO just came with a report that mathematical > >education in highschool in the Netherlands is the best in the world. Having a fair > >impression about it I had my doubts, but less at the moment. Herman > > Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the > highest in Europe You dare to come up with 'someone' when I have the OESO (I am not talking about the national Greek booz) supporting me? I have to admit that 'someone' could be an anagram (word known in English?) for 'oeso men'. 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 Dec 6 02:01:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5F1Er13580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 02:01:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5F18H13576 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 02:01:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-50-101.btinternet.com ([213.122.50.101] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16BdQv-0000Zq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:54:01 +0000 Message-ID: <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:52:52 -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: > Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the > highest in Europe. How can that be? There are no mountains in Belgium. Swiss education levels are almost certainly the highest in Europe. On the subject of carelessness versus irrationality, I have just been reading Larry Cohen's account of the final of the US trial to select a team for Bal... er, Paris. He did not (and you would not) believe some of the plays that were made in the course of a match among players of the very highest class. Yet none of the people who failed to cash the setting trick, or let doubled sacrifices through by producing penalty cards, or went off in laydown games, would say of their actions afterwards "I must have been mad". Rather, they (and their team-mates) would refer to their actions as unpardonably careless. The difficulty is that a play occasioned by an act of carelessness often takes on an aspect of irrationality for those who do not know the mental process that caused it. Suppose you saw Bob Hamman, requiring three tricks from this spade combination (no entry to North): AQ3 K2 lead the two from his hand. Would you think he had gone mad? And yet, if you knew that he had mistaken the four of clubs for the four of spades in his hand, his action would not be in the least "irrational", merely caused by the carelessness that had prompted his original misconception. To say that a play is "irrational" is tantamount only to saying that a player who made the play, being in full awareness of the state of the deal at that point, could not make the play if he were in any way to exercise his powers of reason. To say that a play is "irrational for the class of player involved" is tantamount only to saying that there are players whose powers of reason is greater than others. But a player who makes an invalid claim is either: not in full awareness of the state of the deal (which is careless), or not exercising in any way his powers of reason (which is irrational); and in the vast majority of cases, it is simply not possible to say with certainty in which state (carelessness or irrationality) the player would have continued to play. Of course, none of these questions would occur if people who made claims were compelled to state the cards they would play in the order in which they would play them. I may have mentioned this before. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:00:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5G0HL21948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:00:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5G0AH21933 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:00:10 +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 KAA12124 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11003 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:53:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112051553.KAA11003@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' > should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, > for the class of player, careless". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think the first step is to consider what you want to happen. Are you prepared to rule Mrs. Guggenheim's claims the same as Bob Hamman's or not? (Well, Mrs. G. never claims, but consider a player the next step up from her. Does the Rueful Rabbit ever claim?) Ton's example was a good one, I think. If Hamman says "I'll take my five heart tricks," no one will think about the blockage. Do we demand that he state the exact order of play and rule against him if he doesn't? Or do we allow the claim by RR, who probably will block the suit if he plays it out. Or do we rule differently for these two players? There are a wide variety of opinions on BLML, but I gather the LC wishes to treat players of different skill levels differently. (I personally dislike this; among other things, it makes it difficult to rule. However, as Tim has pointed out, rubber bridge players are accustomed to terse or nonexistent claim statements, and so are top- level duplicate players. If we want to disallow terse claim statements, we will have a serious education project to undertake.) The second step -- only after the first is accomplished -- will be to clarify the language. I suggest as a start that using 'normal' and 'irrational' as opposites is not best. Changing 'normal' to 'rational' might be one possibility, depending on what the meaning is intended to be. Or if "class of player" is to be considered, change 'irrational' to 'abnormal'. > From: "Kooijman, A." > The consequence of my proof is that if we want 'irrational' to be > independent of the class of players, and I don't see why we couldn't, > careless/inferior play should be as well. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The problem is that the usage of 'normal' in the laws departs from the normal dictionary usage. The laws create a dichotomy between 'normal' (with a special definition) on the one hand and 'irrational' on the other. If the boundary between the two depends on class of player, it must do so for both sides of the boundary. The LC has told us that the boundary _does_ depend on class of player. Many of us a) dislike this, and b) think the language as written does not imply this, but I think we have to rule as the LC has told us until a different text or different interpretation is announced. > From: "David Burn" > Of course, none of these questions would occur if people who made claims > were compelled to state the cards they would play in the order in which > they would play them. I may have mentioned this before. Heh! Yes, I have a vague memory to this effect. :-) Taking David's approach would make rulings easier, but it would be a change from current practice. I am not sure it would be easy to implement, but maybe it could be done as part of a major laws change. Tell everyone "One of the changes when the new Laws take effect on June 1, 2007 will be...." (Of course I made up the date, but you get the idea.) Another approach would be to allow RR's claims whenever you would have allowed Hamman's. That will at least encourage RR to claim, although it might give him an occasional trick he could not have won for himself. Who knows, maybe even Mrs. G. would start claiming. Is that so bad? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:03:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5G3D822479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:03:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr ([137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5FwWH21590 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 02:58:35 +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 PAA04563 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:51:10 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__[BLML]_Trick_12_claim?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:51:06 +0000 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on Jean-Pierre Rocafort/DSI/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 05/12/2001 16:51:14, Serialize by Notes Client on Jean-Pierre Rocafort/DSI/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 05/12/2001 16:51:14, Serialize complete at 05/12/2001 16:51:14, S/MIME Sign failed at 05/12/2001 16:51:15: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9_chiffr=E9e_introuvable?=, Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 05.12.2001 15:51:09, Serialize complete at 05.12.2001 15:51:09 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005716A5C1256B19_=" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Message en plusieurs parties au format MIME --=_alternative 005716A5C1256B19_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eric Landau Envoy=E9 par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 05/12/01 14:10 =20 Pour : Bridge Laws Discussion List cc :=20 Objet : RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim At 10:11 AM 12/4/01, Kooijman wrote: > > No. Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" for Mrs. > > Guggenheim, > > while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, > > careless. But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal" for Mr. > > Hamman as > > well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that would be > > careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or that > > wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player. > >This is what I tried to avoid by using the words 'let us assume'. It=20 >is the >logic or non-logic of my approach you should focus on, not the=20 >example. Once >more: for careless we make a distinction in the class of players. So=20 >we say >that it is possible that in identical situatons to assume a kind of=20 >play is >normal (careless) for the mediocre but not normal for the good player. My >question is how do we call it for the good player then? And I only can=20 >find >the description 'irrational' for it, reading the footnote. So the >distinction in playing careless implies the distinction in playing >irrational. Q.E.D. > >Try to explain me once more where I go wrong. Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a mediocre player,=20 this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually careless; by=20 the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not=20 normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for=20 purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for the class of=20 player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a=20 lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational;=20 irrationality does not come into the picture at all. *** as i understand it "normal" includes careless, inferior and also good,=20 careful, expert or genius plays. actually there are only 2 classes of=20 play: normal and irrational; any play belongs to one and only one of these = 2 subsets of the set of plays (they constitute a partition of the set). it = only needs to draw the line between normal and irrational to know to which = subset a play belongs. if the line depends upon the class of player there=20 will be a few plays which will be normal for some players and irrational=20 for others. agreed? or do you think there are "no name" plays? jp rocafort *** 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 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F 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 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F --=_alternative 005716A5C1256B19_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




Eric Landau <elandau@cais.com&= gt;
Envoy=E9 par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb= .anu.edu.au

05/12/01 14:10

       
        Pour : &= nbsp;      Bridge Laws Discussion List <bridge-laws@rgb.a= nu.edu.au>
        cc : &nb= sp;      
        Objet : =        RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim



At 10:11 AM 12/4/01, Kooijman wrote= :

> > No.  Blocking the suit may be "dictionary-normal" = for Mrs.
> > Guggenheim,
> > while for Mr. Hamman it is not; it is, perhaps extraordinarily, > > careless.  But TFLB tells us to consider it "normal&quo= t; for Mr.
> > Hamman as
> > well, as, for ruling purposes, "'normal' includes play that = would be
> > careless of inferior for the class of player involved" -- or= that
> > wouldn't be, for a lesser class of player.
>
>This is what I tried to avoid by using the words 'let us assume'. It >is the
>logic or non-logic of my approach you should focus on, not the
>example. Once
>more: for careless we make a distinction in the class of players. So >we say
>that it is possible that in identical situatons to assume a kind of
>play is
>normal (careless) for the mediocre but not normal for the good player. = My
>question is how do we call it for the good player then? And I only can =
>find
>the description 'irrational' for it, reading the footnote. So the
>distinction in playing careless implies the distinction in playing
>irrational. Q.E.D.
>
>Try to explain me once more where I go wrong.

Consider a player who misses a double squeeze.  For a mediocre player,=
this is normal.  For a top-level expert, this is unusually careless; b= y
the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely n= ot
normal.  The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal&q= uot; for
purposes of adjudication.  It is "careless or inferior for the cl= ass of
player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior&quo= t; for a
lesser class of player.  In neither case is it irrational;
irrationality does not come into the picture at all.

***
 as i understand it "norm= al" includes careless, inferior and also good, careful, expert or geni= us plays. actually there are only 2 classes of play: normal and irrational;= any play belongs to one and only one of these 2 subsets of the set of play= s (they constitute a partition of the set). it only needs to draw the line = between normal and irrational to know to which subset a play belongs. if th= e line depends upon the class of player there will be a few plays which wil= l be normal for some players and irrational for others. agreed? or do you t= hink there are "no name" plays?

jp rocafort
***


Eric Landau       &n= bsp;             elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.o= rg
1107 Dale Drive                 (30= 1) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618


=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
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
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F

--=_alternative 005716A5C1256B19_=-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:13:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5GDNo24652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:13:23 +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 fB5GDHH24636 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:13:18 +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 LAA12826 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11043 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:06:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:06:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112051606.LAA11043@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "mike amos" > Here in England there is established case law that deals with > situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which of > small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer The "declarer's question" case is entirely different, so this case law does not apply. Hesitations are denigrated throughout the laws, but questions are specifically allowed. Further, there is a clear and direct connection between the answer to the question and the card declarer wants to play. If the latter does not constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason," nothing does. One legal issue is whether "action" can be construed as the _timing_ of declarer's inquiry rather than the inquiry itself. (I think both the timing and the phrasing of questions can be considered "action" within the meaning of L73F3. It is not right to phrase a question in a misleading way when there is a non-misleading way to get the same information.) There is a separate bridge judgment issue as to whether declarer "could have known" that his timing would be likely to mislead the defenders. A fact that may be relevant is whether there was a proper convention card available to declarer. If not, I think anything that happens subsequently is the defenders' fault. If a proper CC was available, I am willing to consider further, but I am not yet convinced about the bridge judgment issue. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:30:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5GUB727232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:30:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5GU1H27212 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:30:02 +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 fB5GMHb09215; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:22:22 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011205101550.00a13180@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 10:23:16 -0600 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> References: <3C0E155C.5000504@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 02:52 PM 12/5/01 +0000, David Burn wrote: >the very highest class. Yet none of the people who failed to cash the >setting trick, or let doubled sacrifices through by producing penalty >cards, or went off in laydown games, would say of their actions >afterwards "I must have been mad". Rather, they (and their team-mates) >would refer to their actions as unpardonably careless. [snip] All of this is irrelevant. I could just as easily argue that the footnote is absurd on the grounds that a play that is careless or inferior for my class of player is not 'normal', since 'normal' means "what usually occurs" and it is impossible to say that I _usually_ play in ways that are inferior _for me_. But, in fact, 'normal' [in the context of claims] does not mean what 'normal' means in ordinary usage, and equally there is no reason to suppose that 'irrational' [in the context of claims] means 'insane, totally beyond the bounds of reason'. {In fact, I should say that '_unpardonably_ careless' is a fair definition of 'irrational'.} I understand you have coherent reasons for wanting claims to be adjudicated differently, but this linguistic argument is a non-starter, IMHO. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:34:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5GY4p27727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:34:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5GXwH27712 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:33:59 +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 fB5GQu628296; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:26:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:18:13 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: Bridge Laws cc: David Burn X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <20011205112657-R01010800-6999dece-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 12/5/01 at 2:52 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > Of course, none of these questions would occur if people who made claims > were compelled to state the cards they would play in the order in which > they would play them. I may have mentioned this before. A good point, I think. Law 68C reads, in part, "a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification..." Perhaps the solution is to change "should" to "shall". Nah. Can't be that simple. :-) 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 03:36:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5Ga5e27986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:36:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5GZtH27963 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:35:56 +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 fB5GSTb12301; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:28:29 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011205102436.00a13ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 10:29:28 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205090241.00b3a5e0@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:12 AM 12/5/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:43 AM 12/5/01, Koojiman wrote: > >>Eric >> > Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a >> > mediocre player, >> > this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually >> > careless; by >> > the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not >> > normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for >> > purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for >> > the class of >> > player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a >> > lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational; >> > irrationality does not come into the picture at all. >> >>True but you work at the wrong side of the line. >>Assume a play which is careless for the mediocre player (we don't grant the >>claim) but not for the top player (we allow the claim). Then how do we call >>such play imagining the top player applies it? Yes, yes, try, come on, >>........ > >It cannot be imagined, because it is a logical impossibility. A play >which is careless for a lesser player must perforce be (even more) >careless for a better one. In the former case it may be "a little bit >careless or inferior" while in the latter is is "extremely careless or >inferior", but it is nonetheless "careless or inferior" in both >cases. What the footnote tells us is that we should not allow the claim >in either case. The footnote does not tell you that--if it was meant to tell you that, it is even more horribly badly written than some people think it is. If this was what the footnote meant, then the words 'class of player' ought never to have been in it at all. [I understand that some have philosophical reasons for not wanting it there, but that is quite different from saying that it doesn't mean what it implies.] I think it is clear that the footnote was intended to mean precisely what Ton suggests--for each class of player there are some plays that are [merely] careless or inferior, while there are other plays that are [for that class of player] irrational. We allow the former, but not the latter. Those who think that the footnote _shouldn't_ say that can make their case as always if they like, but I really cannot see [especially after the clarification] how anyone can argue that the footnote _doesn't_ mean that. Respectfully, Grant >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 04:05:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5H4YX03299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 04:04:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5H4RH03271 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 04:04:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-185-101.btinternet.com ([213.122.185.101] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16BfMK-0002J3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:57:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c17dad$d1271c20$65b97ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011205101550.00a13180@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:56:41 -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 Grant wrote: > [snip] > All of this is irrelevant. I could just as easily > argue that the footnote is absurd on the grounds that a > play that is careless or inferior for my class of player > is not 'normal', since 'normal' means "what usually occurs" > and it is impossible to say that I _usually_ play in > ways that are inferior _for me_. > But, in fact, 'normal' [in the context of claims] > does not mean what 'normal' means in ordinary usage, and > equally there is no reason to suppose that 'irrational' > [in the context of claims] means 'insane, totally beyond the > bounds of reason'. {In fact, I should say that '_unpardonably_ > careless' is a fair definition of 'irrational'.} > > I understand you have coherent reasons for wanting > claims to be adjudicated differently, but this linguistic > argument is a non-starter, IMHO. I am a little perturbed by this. It seems to me that the words in the Laws mean what they mean in English usage, otherwise they do not mean anything at all. Of course, I would have no difficulty - indeed, I would welcome - a rewriting of the Law and the footnote so that they said: 70D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative frabjous line of play that would be less successful. Footnote For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, "frabjous" includes play that would be brillig or slithy for the class of player involved, but not frumious. Now, there would be a need to define (by means of examples) what was meant by "frabjous", "brillig", "slithy" and "frumious", so that we would all know where we were. That, in effect, is what is happening at the moment, except that we are trying to redefine "normal", "careless", "inferior" and "irrational" not in terms of what they mean, but in terms of whether we want or do not want to allow a certain type of claim from a certain type of player. "Unpardonably careless" is a ludicrous definition of "irrational" - the terms do not mean the same thing at all. The fact that a respectful and respected contributor to this list can seriously advance the hypothesis that they do is an indication that language has been twisted beyond endurance, and that the Laws relating to claims should be towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire. I may have mentioned this before also. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 06:27:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5JQL823177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:26:21 +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 fB5JQFH23173 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:26:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-5-27.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.5.27] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16BhZY-000GU0-00; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:19:13 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c17dc1$e355dda0$2a40e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:17:46 -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: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:16 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim > > > This is a perfect example of the mess we keep making in > our discussions. Irrational we might call them. > +=+ No problem. We did know what your point was.+=+ > > The consequence of my proof is that if we want > 'irrational' to be independent of the class of players, and > I don't see why we couldn't, careless/inferior play should > be as well. Or the whole concept needs to be reviewed > adding something more. > +=+ I do not see why these things should not be attached to the characteristics of the play, looked at objectively, rather than to the play set against the quality of the player. However, I do think it is possible for something to be careless for a player who knows full well what she should be doing but not careless for him who does not. Care is a personal attribute. On the other hand 'inferior', like 'irrational', is inferior in my book regardless of the ability of the player. +=+ > > The OESO just came with a report that mathematical > education in highschool in the Netherlands is the best > in the world. Having a fair impression about it I had my > doubts, but less at the moment. > +=+ In order to respond I think I need to know the meaning of 'fair'... beautiful? - objective? - rather strong? - mediocre? - but let it be said that the humble English assume all their public services to be inferior (and frequently prove it). ~ G ~ +=+ > > 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 Dec 6 06:55:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5JrU823222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:53:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5JrOH23218 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:53:25 +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 fB5JkMB08563 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:46:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c17dc5$6a7a16e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011204091029.00b36680@127.0.0.1> <001b01c17d5d$5aff5d00$6106e150@dodona> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:43:29 -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" > > Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' > should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, > for the class of player, careless". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'll throw a suggestion into the pot: Treat everyone in an event as equals. Equal to what? To what the TD/AC considers to be the average ability of players in the event. Then what is irrational would depend on the level of the event, and identical situations arising in the event would get identical treatment. 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 Dec 6 07:39:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5Kd4q23248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 07:39:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5KcvH23244 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 07:38:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from newron3d ([62.0.78.99]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GNW003EO110P6@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 22:31:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 22:29:23 +0200 From: =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. To: BLML BLML Message-id: <012401c17dcb$876a2c80$634e003e@newron3d> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200112051606.LAA11043@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was the TD in this case, E-W could not find their C/C !!! and this was the first board of the match Ilan Shezifi ======================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: éåí øáéòé 05 ãöîáø 2001 18:06 Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. > > From: "mike amos" > > Here in England there is established case law that deals with > > situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which of > > small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages declarer > > The "declarer's question" case is entirely different, so this case law > does not apply. Hesitations are denigrated throughout the laws, but > questions are specifically allowed. Further, there is a clear and > direct connection between the answer to the question and the card > declarer wants to play. If the latter does not constitute a > "demonstrable bridge reason," nothing does. > > One legal issue is whether "action" can be construed as the _timing_ of > declarer's inquiry rather than the inquiry itself. (I think both the > timing and the phrasing of questions can be considered "action" within > the meaning of L73F3. It is not right to phrase a question in a > misleading way when there is a non-misleading way to get the same > information.) > > There is a separate bridge judgment issue as to whether declarer "could > have known" that his timing would be likely to mislead the defenders. > > A fact that may be relevant is whether there was a proper convention > card available to declarer. If not, I think anything that happens > subsequently is the defenders' fault. If a proper CC was available, I > am willing to consider further, but I am not yet convinced about the > bridge judgment issue. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 6 08:19:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5LJgl23278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:19:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB5LJZH23274 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:19:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB5LCS927733 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:12:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:12:29 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/05/2001 22:12:28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why is it nobody seems to consider how important it can be to avoid alerting opponents in the interest of their signals until after the (presumably honest) signal has been given? There was definitely a reason for declarer to ask for opponents signals, and there was equally definitely a reason to delay that question till after West had made his discard. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 08:23:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5LNqr23293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:23:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5LNkH23289 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:23:47 +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 fB5LGkB27484 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:16:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004401c17dd2$07d52d60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <004d01c17dc1$e355dda0$2a40e150@dodona> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:06:06 -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" > +=+ I do not see why these things should not be attached > to the characteristics of the play, looked at objectively, > rather than to the play set against the quality of the player. > However, I do think it is possible for something to be > careless for a player who knows full well what she should > be doing but not careless for him who does not. Care is > a personal attribute. On the other hand 'inferior', like > 'irrational', is inferior in my book regardless of the ability > of the player. +=+ > A problem undiscussed in this thread is that the footnote is being applied unfairly to the claimant's opponents. An opponent, perhaps an expert partnered with a novice, points out that a claim is invalid because a rather advanced play by the novice declarer/defender would produce a trick not envisioned by the claimer. Then the TD/AC, saying that the footnotes justify the ruling/decision, allow the claim because this "class of player" would be too unlikely to execute the invalidating play. I don't think TDs/ACs should be in the business of deciding what a player is capable of doing. If either opponent can point to a legal line of play that invalidates the claim, that should be the end of it. And has been, throughout my 50+ years of bridge, until recently. L70B3 is not sufficient to stop this sort of thing. It just says that the Director "hears the objections to the claim," not how he deals with those objections. Another sentence is needed, one that doesn't refer to a footnote. 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 Dec 6 09:06:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5M6Tb23319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:06:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5M6NH23315 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:06:24 +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 fB5LxKP83602 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:59:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@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, 05 Dec 2001 17:01:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_R=E9f._:__[BLML]_Trick_12_claim?= In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3423727==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_3423727==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:51 AM 12/5/01, jean-pierre wrote: > as i understand it "normal" includes careless, inferior and also > good, careful, expert or genius plays. actually there are only 2 > classes of play: normal and irrational; any play belongs to one and > only one of these 2 subsets of the set of plays (they constitute a > partition of the set). it only needs to draw the line between normal > and irrational to know to which subset a play belongs. if the line > depends upon the class of player there will be a few plays which will > be normal for some players and irrational for others. agreed? or do > you think there are "no name" plays? But there are three classes of play, as JP points out. They are: (a) "good, careful, expert or genius plays", (b) "careless, inferior" plays, and (c) irrational plays. The distinction between (a) and (b) patently depends on the class of player. The footnote plainly says that plays in (b) are to be treated the same way as plays in (a). This does not depend in any way on the distinction between (b) and (c) being dependent on the class of player. Those who disagree with me read the footnote as stating that it does (which makes the variability of the distinction relevant for ruling purposes), over and above its primary message (that (b) plays are to be treated the same as (a) plays). I do not find that hidden second message inside the first one, and argue that if it were intended by the lawmakers, they would (or at least should) have rather stated that message explicitly. If the majority is correct, the footnote could have been written as simply, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would not be irrational for the class of player involved." 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 --=====================_3423727==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:51 AM 12/5/01, jean-pierre wrote:

 as i understand it "normal" includes careless, inferior and also good, careful, expert or genius plays. actually there are only 2 classes of play: normal and irrational; any play belongs to one and only one of these 2 subsets of the set of plays (they constitute a partition of the set). it only needs to draw the line between normal and irrational to know to which subset a play belongs. if the line depends upon the class of player there will be a few plays which will be normal for some players and irrational for others. agreed? or do you think there are "no name" plays?

But there are three classes of play, as JP points out.  They are: (a) "good, careful, expert or genius plays", (b) "careless, inferior" plays, and (c) irrational plays.  The distinction between (a) and (b) patently depends on the class of player.  The footnote plainly says that plays in (b) are to be treated the same way as plays in (a).  This does not depend in any way on the distinction between (b) and (c) being dependent on the class of player.  Those who disagree with me read the footnote as stating that it does (which makes the variability of the distinction relevant for ruling purposes), over and above its primary message (that (b) plays are to be treated the same as (a) plays).  I do not find that hidden second message inside the first one, and argue that if it were intended by the lawmakers, they would (or at least should) have rather stated that message explicitly.  If the majority is correct, the footnote could have been written as simply, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would not be irrational for the class of player involved."


Eric Landau           &nbs= p;         elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.org
1107 Dale Drive            = ;     (301) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3423727==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 09:28:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB5MRrg23336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:27:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB5MRmH23332 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:27:48 +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 fB5MKjH87812 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:20:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205170544.00b3b900@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, 05 Dec 2001 17:22:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <200112051553.KAA11003@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 10:53 AM 12/5/01, Steve wrote: >I think the first step is to consider what you want to happen. Are you >prepared to rule Mrs. Guggenheim's claims the same as Bob Hamman's or >not? (Well, Mrs. G. never claims, but consider a player the next step >up from her. Does the Rueful Rabbit ever claim?) I am. >Ton's example was a good one, I think. If Hamman says "I'll take my >five heart tricks," no one will think about the blockage. ...possibly including Mr. Hamman. Granted, for a player of Mr. Hamman's class, blocking the suit would be extremely careless, while for Mrs. G it would be normal, but we know that such things happen all the time. >Do we demand >that he state the exact order of play and rule against him if he >doesn't? Or do we allow the claim by RR, who probably will block the >suit if he plays it out. Or do we rule differently for these two >players? No, but, as even Mr. Hamman does occasionally block suits, we require that he say *something* to indicate that he doesn't plan to do so this time. Not necessarily the exact order of play; "I'll take my five heart tricks, unblocking" would be easily sufficient. >There are a wide variety of opinions on BLML, but I gather the LC >wishes to treat players of different skill levels differently. (I >personally dislike this; among other things, it makes it difficult to >rule. However, as Tim has pointed out, rubber bridge players are >accustomed to terse or nonexistent claim statements, and so are top- >level duplicate players. If we want to disallow terse claim >statements, we will have a serious education project to undertake.) But when a rubber bridge player wanders into our duplicate game, how are we to know what his "class of player" is? That's the problem in real life; we don't want rulings that depend on someone's subjective (or totally ungrounded) judgment of a particular player's "class". Just because we require that a claimer indicate his awareness of a potential problem doesn't mean that his statement can't be terse, as the above example shows. >The second step -- only after the first is accomplished -- will be to >clarify the language. I suggest as a start that using 'normal' and >'irrational' as opposites is not best. Changing 'normal' to 'rational' >might be one possibility, depending on what the meaning is intended to >be. Or if "class of player" is to be considered, change 'irrational' >to 'abnormal'. Yes, that would certainly clarify the intent of the footnote. The latter, though, would not help us apply it. > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > The consequence of my proof is that if we want 'irrational' to be > > independent of the class of players, and I don't see why we couldn't, > > careless/inferior play should be as well. > >I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The problem is that the >usage of 'normal' in the laws departs from the normal dictionary >usage. The laws create a dichotomy between 'normal' (with a special >definition) on the one hand and 'irrational' on the other. If the >boundary between the two depends on class of player, it must do so for >both sides of the boundary. > >The LC has told us that the boundary _does_ depend on class of player. >Many of us a) dislike this, and b) think the language as written does >not imply this, but I think we have to rule as the LC has told us until >a different text or different interpretation is announced. And we do (whether we like it or not) *when we can*. But how are we supposed to rule in accordance with the LC's statement that our ruling depends on the class of player involved when we have no idea what the class of player involved is (or when the members of our AC have differing opinions on the matter)? We simply can't, so it seems rather foolish for the LC to tell us that we must. 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 Dec 6 13:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB62Tcn00842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:29:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB62TWH00838 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:29:32 +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 fB62MT605686 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:22:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:15:48 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20011205212231-R01010800-d0cde213-0904-0109@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 Consider the following situation: S - H QTx D x C - S - S - H xxx H K D x D KQ C - C Q S Tx H - D T C T South is declarer in 6S, having lost one trick (a club ruff, on trick 4, to West). On trick 7, South ruffed a club in dummy, and East revoked, discarding a heart. The lead is at present in South's hand. After the smoke clears, is the revoke penalty one trick or two? Does it matter which minor suit South leads? I ask because I wonder if it depends on whether "subsequently" in L6AA2 means "subsequent to the revoke", or "subsequent to the offending side's winning a trick after the revoke". So it may be, I think, that if South leads the diamond, East wins and plays the CQ, that's a two trick penalty. But if South leads the club, losing to the Queen, and that's the first trick defenders win after the revoke, is it "subsequently" or not? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 6 14:42:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB63frD00875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:41:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB63fiH00871 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:41:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP16.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.16]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12972 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:34:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: TR: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:37:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----Ed Wrote: Consider the following situation: S - H QTx D x C - S - S - H xxx H K D x D KQ C - C Q S Tx H - D T C T South is declarer in 6S, having lost one trick (a club ruff, on trick 4, to West). On trick 7, South ruffed a club in dummy, and East revoked, discarding a heart. The lead is at present in South's hand. After the smoke clears, is the revoke penalty one trick or two? Does it matter which minor suit South leads? I ask because I wonder if it depends on whether "subsequently" in L6AA2 means "subsequent to the revoke", or "subsequent to the offending side's winning a trick after the revoke". So it may be, I think, that if South leads the diamond, East wins and plays the CQ, that's a two trick penalty. But if South leads the club, losing to the Queen, and that's the first trick defenders win after the revoke, is it "subsequently" or not? _________________________________________________________________________ I think you should read "subsequent to the revoke". IMHO Law 64A is quite simple but written so complicated: Could have been something like: 1) When OS won 0 trick from the revoke to the end = 0 trick transfered 2) When OS won 1 trick = 1 trick transfered 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence winning the trick now or later), transfer 2 tricks to the NOS. b)If not, transfer only 1 trick. 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 Dec 6 23:17:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6CG9C22278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:16:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6CG2H22274 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:16:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.133]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB6C8ts27264 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:08:56 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0E2855.5030508@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:59:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Try to explain me once more where I go wrong. > > > Consider a player who misses a double squeeze. For a mediocre player, > this is normal. For a top-level expert, this is unusually careless; by > the dictionary definition of the word "normal" it is definitely not > normal. The footnote tells us, however, to consider it "normal" for > purposes of adjudication. It is "careless or inferior for the class of > player involved", while it would not be "careless or inferior" for a > lesser class of player. In neither case is it irrational; irrationality > does not come into the picture at all. > > Absolutely not what Ton means, Eric, sorry To use your example, the usual player missing a double squeeze is called normal because it is careless (for him). To the expert hailing from Sweden, it is deemed not normal. Why ? because to him, it is judged "irrational" to miss it. So irrational needs the same quelification "for the class of player involved". If you call it irrational for everyone to fail to execute a double squeeze (and you might), then you must say that this misplay is also merely "careless" for everyone. But you cannot say that it is irrational for everyone, and at the same time not careless for GH. If you say that, what is it, normal or not ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 00:24:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6DO5F22313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:24:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6DNxH22309 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:23:59 +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 fB6DGti23028 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:16:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206080932.00b3a960@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, 06 Dec 2001 08:19:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <3C0E2855.5030508@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:59 AM 12/5/01, Herman wrote: >To use your example, the usual player missing a double squeeze is >called normal because it is careless (for him). > >To the expert hailing from Sweden, it is deemed not normal. >Why ? because to him, it is judged "irrational" to miss it. That is the problem. "Irrational", unlike "'normal'", has its usual English meaning in this context, as TFLB does not provide us, as it does for "'normal'", with a specific definition (the footnote) that tells us otherwise. And there's no way that for anyone to miss a double squeeze could be considered "irrational" by the usual English meaning of the word. >So irrational needs the same quelification "for the class of player >involved". Only if you wish to judge that it is "irrational" for Herman's Swedish expert. I don't. >If you call it irrational for everyone to fail to execute a double >squeeze (and you might), then you must say that this misplay is also >merely "careless" for everyone. It is not irrational for anyone. In my lexicon, it is careless for some (of a high enough "class of player") but not others. But if you want to call it careless for everyone, fine; it doesn't affect my argument. >But you cannot say that it is irrational for everyone, and at the same >time not careless for GH. If you say that, what is it, normal or not ? It is irrational for noone, and careless for GH. Whether we call it "normal" or "careless" for a lesser class of player doesn't matter, as the footnote tells us to regard either as "'normal'" by the special definition provided by the footnote. 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 Dec 7 02:15:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6FF1c02031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f112.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.112]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6FEuH02027 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 07:07:49 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:07:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: elandau@cais.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Réf. : [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:07:48 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2001 15:07:49.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4C8CDB0:01C17E67] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk


Perhaps irrational is there to prevent spurious arguements. Insisting that a player could discard aces before twos as if playing Misere. >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Réf. : [BLML] Trick 12 claim >Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:01:28 -0500 > >At 10:51 AM 12/5/01, jean-pierre wrote: > >> as i understand it "normal" includes careless, inferior and also >>good, careful, expert or genius plays. actually there are only 2 >>classes of play: normal and irrational; any play belongs to one and >>only one of these 2 subsets of the set of plays (they constitute a >>partition of the set). it only needs to draw the line between normal >>and irrational to know to which subset a play belongs. if the line >>depends upon the class of player there will be a few plays which will >>be normal for some players and irrational for others. agreed? or do >>you think there are "no name" plays? > >But there are three classes of play, as JP points out. They are: (a) >"good, careful, expert or genius plays", (b) "careless, inferior" >plays, and (c) irrational plays. The distinction between (a) and (b) >patently depends on the class of player. The footnote plainly says >that plays in (b) are to be treated the same way as plays in (a). This >does not depend in any way on the distinction between (b) and (c) being >dependent on the class of player. Those who disagree with me read the >footnote as stating that it does (which makes the variability of the >distinction relevant for ruling purposes), over and above its primary >message (that (b) plays are to be treated the same as (a) plays). I do >not find that hidden second message inside the first one, and argue >that if it were intended by the lawmakers, they would (or at least >should) have rather stated that message explicitly. If the majority is >correct, the footnote could have been written as simply, "For the >purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would not >be irrational for the class of player involved." > > >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 7 02:19:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6FJdI02043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:19:39 +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 fB6FJXH02039 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:19:34 +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 KAA00951 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA18121 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:12:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112061512.KAA18121@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > I ask because I wonder if it depends on whether "subsequently" in L6AA2 means > "subsequent to the revoke", or "subsequent to the offending side's winning a > trick after the revoke". Laval gave the correct answer for the example hand and the correct algorithm. Technically, the meaning of 'subsequent' is not quite either of the above, I think. I'd say it's "subsequent to the revoke trick," based on the earlier part of the sentence in 64A2. This is nearly the same as 'subsequent to the revoke'. This would be another good place for the LC to simplify the language or even to simplify the laws by, for example, going back to the two trick penalty for all revokes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 03:56:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6GuLS10887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:21 +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 fB6GuBH10875 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.105]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB6Gn6s13932 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:49:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:29:13 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello David, David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the >>highest in Europe. >> > > How can that be? There are no mountains in Belgium. Swiss education > levels are almost certainly the highest in Europe. > Is this a joke or a serious attempt to teach me that the word high cannot be used in this context in the English language ? > On the subject of carelessness versus irrationality, I have just been > reading Larry Cohen's account of the final of the US trial to select a > team for Bal... er, Paris. He did not (and you would not) believe some > of the plays that were made in the course of a match among players of > the very highest class. Yet none of the people who failed to cash the > setting trick, or let doubled sacrifices through by producing penalty > cards, or went off in laydown games, would say of their actions > afterwards "I must have been mad". Rather, they (and their team-mates) > would refer to their actions as unpardonably careless. > I understand your point, David, and it is correct, but for one point. Yes, players sometimes make plays that would be deemed irrational. But the concept of claiming is there, and plays that are deemed irrational are not to be counted, not even if they sometimes do happen. That's just the claims law, and any other law would simply make claims useless, since all claims would be rules as zero tricks. (or almost every one, you know what I mean) > The difficulty is that a play occasioned by an act of carelessness often > takes on an aspect of irrationality for those who do not know the mental > process that caused it. Suppose you saw Bob Hamman, requiring three > tricks from this spade combination (no entry to North): > > AQ3 > > K2 > > lead the two from his hand. Would you think he had gone mad? And yet, if > you knew that he had mistaken the four of clubs for the four of spades > in his hand, his action would not be in the least "irrational", merely > caused by the carelessness that had prompted his original misconception. > And it would count as a careless action in my book. which is why I put a great deal of effort in trying to determine the exact state of mind of the player. OTOH, suppose you saw Hamman claiming three tricks on the above lay-out, would you feel it OK to rule one trick to defenders, just because you know Hamman once played the 2 in such a position? I'm sure you would not. > To say that a play is "irrational" is tantamount only to saying that a > player who made the play, being in full awareness of the state of the > deal at that point, could not make the play if he were in any way to > exercise his powers of reason. To say that a play is "irrational for the > class of player involved" is tantamount only to saying that there are > players whose powers of reason is greater than others. But a player who > makes an invalid claim is either: not in full awareness of the state of > the deal (which is careless), or not exercising in any way his powers of > reason (which is irrational); and in the vast majority of cases, it is > simply not possible to say with certainty in which state (carelessness > or irrationality) the player would have continued to play. > Read Ton's post (and mine) again. We are merely trying to establish that since carelessness is to be judged for "the class of player involved", then so must irrationality. To do otherwise would leave some cases hanging in the cold without a definition. Ergo, there are things which would be irrational for Hamman, but merely careless for Mrs Guggenheim. Perhaps the given example is not a correct one, but surely the set is not empty. > Of course, none of these questions would occur if people who made claims > were compelled to state the cards they would play in the order in which > they would play them. I may have mentioned this before. > Yes, you have, and you're in a smaller minority there than I am on some issues. Not that this induces either of us to change or opinions of course. -- 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 Dec 7 03:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6GuQx10891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:26 +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-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 fB6GuHH10884 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.105]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB6GnCs13970 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:49:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0F67CB.4070809@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:42:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes Eric, yes. Eric Landau wrote: > > > But there are three classes of play, as JP points out. They are: (a) > "good, careful, expert or genius plays", (b) "careless, inferior" plays, > and (c) irrational plays. The distinction between (a) and (b) patently > depends on the class of player. The footnote plainly says that plays in > (b) are to be treated the same way as plays in (a). This does not > depend in any way on the distinction between (b) and (c) being dependent > on the class of player. Those who disagree with me read the footnote as > stating that it does (which makes the variability of the distinction > relevant for ruling purposes), over and above its primary message (that > (b) plays are to be treated the same as (a) plays). I do not find that > hidden second message inside the first one, and argue that if it were > intended by the lawmakers, they would (or at least should) have rather > stated that message explicitly. If the majority is correct, the > footnote could have been written as simply, "For the purposes of Laws > 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would not be irrational for > the class of player involved." > > Yes Eric, you have found a sensible alternate interpretation of the footnote. Very clever. However, the WBFLC have stated that : a) this was not their original intention b) this is not their current interpretation why then labour the point ? And yes, the lmanguage is superfluous, but how are you going to define a boundary except by giving some words for things on either side of it. The WBFLC tell us that on one side of the boundary is careless and inferior, on the other is irrational, and they tell us that the boundary depends on the class of player. What more do you want ? And before you jump in again, David, this is the current laws we are discussing, not the hypothetical 2017 ones. -- 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 Dec 7 03:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6GuNK10890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6GuDH10877 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:56:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.105]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB6Gn9s13949 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:49:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0F65E9.5060003@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:34:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > ton: > > >>>The OESO just came with a report that mathematical >>>education in highschool in the Netherlands is the best in the world. >>> > Having a fair > >>>impression about it I had my doubts, but less at the moment. >>> > > Herman > > >>Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the >>highest in Europe >> > > > You dare to come up with 'someone' when I have the OESO (I am not talking > about the national Greek booz) supporting me? I have to admit that 'someone' > could be an anagram (word known in English?) for 'oeso men'. > Actually the someone was my mother and she was citing a TV report (yes a Flemish one) about a European study. Might even be the same one you mentioned. I was torn between not contributing and writing "someone". I could not resist. -- 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 Dec 7 04:27:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6HR4E10927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:27:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6HQsH10923 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:26:54 +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 fB6HCKb26195; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:12:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011206104720.00a16af0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:13:05 -0600 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <000901c17dad$d1271c20$65b97ad5@pbncomputer> References: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011205101550.00a13180@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 12/5/01 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: > > > [snip] > > All of this is irrelevant. I could just as easily > > argue that the footnote is absurd on the grounds that a > > play that is careless or inferior for my class of player > > is not 'normal', since 'normal' means "what usually occurs" > > and it is impossible to say that I _usually_ play in > > ways that are inferior _for me_. > > But, in fact, 'normal' [in the context of claims] > > does not mean what 'normal' means in ordinary usage, and > > equally there is no reason to suppose that 'irrational' > > [in the context of claims] means 'insane, totally beyond the > > bounds of reason'. {In fact, I should say that '_unpardonably_ > > careless' is a fair definition of 'irrational'.} > > > > I understand you have coherent reasons for wanting > > claims to be adjudicated differently, but this linguistic > > argument is a non-starter, IMHO. > >I am a little perturbed by this. It seems to me that the words in the >Laws mean what they mean in English usage, otherwise they do not mean >anything at all. Of course, I would have no difficulty - indeed, I submit, then, that 'normal' cannot mean what it _usually_ means in English usage [at least not this side of the pond] and also mean what it means in the footnote. >I would >welcome - a rewriting of the Law and the footnote so that they said: > >70D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play >The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play >not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an >alternative frabjous line of play that would be less successful. > >Footnote >For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, "frabjous" includes play that >would be brillig or slithy for the class of player involved, but not >frumious. > >Now, there would be a need to define (by means of examples) what was >meant by "frabjous", "brillig", "slithy" and "frumious", so that we >would all know where we were. That, in effect, is what is happening at >the moment, except that we are trying to redefine "normal", "careless", >"inferior" and "irrational" not in terms of what they mean, but in terms >of whether we want or do not want to allow a certain type of claim from >a certain type of player. > >"Unpardonably careless" is a ludicrous definition of "irrational" - the >terms do not mean the same thing at all. The fact that a respectful and >respected contributor to this list can seriously advance the hypothesis >that they do is an indication that language has been twisted beyond >endurance, and that the Laws relating to claims should be towed out to >sea and sunk by gunfire. I may have mentioned this before also. In regards this, and also Eric Landau's similar comments, I can only say that: a) I apparently am familiar with a rather peculiar group of people, because on the rare occasions when I hear the word 'irrational' used it is not used in anywhere near the extreme sense that you suggest. I have heard people say things like "he has an irrational fear of heights", without implying that the fear is a form of insanity, or "Hitler then made the irrational decision to invade Russia", which was not intended to mean that the invasion was insane [Hitler may have been insane, but that wasn't the point of the comment], but merely that it was, shall we say, "greatly inferior" generalship. I do not mean that the word is _never_ used to mean "insane", because of course it is. But that strong usage of the word is nowhere near as universal as you seem to imply, and so to say that "irrational" means "unpardonably careless" does not seem to me to be any more of a stretch of the word "irrational" than including inferior and careless play is a stretch of the word "normal". In both cases, the word is sometimes used in that way. [Actually, in my experience "irrational" is used this way more often than "normal" is.] {Indeed, in Philosophy "rational" is sometimes defined as "taking the most efficient means to one's ends", from which it follows that 'careless or inferior' play would actually be 'irrational'. But I agree that 'irrational' is hardly ever used in that weak a fashion by real human beings.} b) Logicians and linguists have long recognized a category of definition known as 'precising definitions', where one takes a vague term and gives it a more precise meaning for the purpose of applying it more strictly, such as in law. [Someone is 'driving while intoxicated' if their blood-alcohol level exceeds a certain mark.] No-one pretends that these precising definitions carry the _exact_ meaning of the term so defined (indeed, the whole point of making such a definition is that the word doesn't have a precise ordinary usage), only that the meaning is somewhere in the neighborhood of the meaning of the term defined. I submit that the footnote gives an imperfect precising definition of 'normal', and that given the recent interpretation it also gives an even more imperfect precising definition of 'irrational'. {I always read it that way, anyway.} Perhaps you are right that it would have been better to give stipulative definitions of invented terms instead, but (given my comments in 'a', above) I don't see that this is necessary. Indeed, I prefer things as they stand. Perhaps this is simply proof that bridge would be better if I were towed to sea and sunk by gunfire. :) >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 08:32:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6LVBM19037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:31:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6LV4H19011 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:31:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB6LO0q20758 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200112062124.fB6LO0q20758@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:24:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <000c01c17dc5$6a7a16e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Dec 05, 2001 11:43:29 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' > > should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, > > for the class of player, careless". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'll throw a suggestion into the pot: > > Treat everyone in an event as equals. Equal to what? To what the TD/AC > considers to be the average ability of players in the event. Then what > is irrational would depend on the level of the event, and identical > situations arising in the event would get identical treatment. This seems a worst of all worlds idea. Discourages claims by strong players -- they're held to a standard below themselves. Encourages poorly thought out claims by weaker players -- let the TD sort it out, but granting them a standard of play higher than their own. I could accept lowest common denominator though. I don't have any real objection to encouraging stronger players to claim with a well thought out statement. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 08:58:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6LwDa19260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:58:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6Lw7H19256 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:58:08 +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 fB6Lp3T76979 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:51:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@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, 06 Dec 2001 16:53:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> References: <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:29 AM 12/6/01, Herman wrote: >Read Ton's post (and mine) again. We are merely trying to establish >that since carelessness is to be judged for "the class of player >involved", then so must irrationality. To do otherwise would leave >some cases hanging in the cold without a definition. Ergo, there are >things which would be irrational for Hamman, but merely careless for >Mrs Guggenheim. Perhaps the given example is not a correct one, but >surely the set is not empty. I don't think Herman (or Ton) really understands the opposing argument. Herman's conclusion follows from his premise, but his premise is (according to the opposing argument) simply wrong; the footnote tells us specifically that carelessness is *not* "to be judged for 'the class of player involved'". What is does tell us is that whether or not the play was careless, we are to treat it as "normal". It tells us that we may not exclude lines that *may or may not be* careless (ftcopi); we may only exclude lines that are irrational. It tells us that we may *not* say things like, "For Mr. Hamman, that play would be so careless that we don't not believe he would actually do it, therefore we will not consider it when adjudicating his claim." What convinces those who agree with me is that if Herman's and Ton's reading were correct, it would have been very easy for the lawmakers to have written the footnote a lot more clearly (I have suggested several possible such rewordings in previous posts), whereas if my reading is correct, it would be a lot harder to rewrite the footnote to make it any clearer. Perhaps something like, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered "normal" even if they would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." That, it seems to me, is a lot closer to the actual wording of the footnote than any rewrite which would make Herman's and Ton's interpretation clearly correct. 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 Dec 7 09:14:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MDo319282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:13:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6MDjH19278 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:13:45 +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 fB6M6eK23369 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:06:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@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, 06 Dec 2001 17:08:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:_R=E9f._:__[BLML]_Trick_12_claim?= In-Reply-To: <3C0F67CB.4070809@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:42 AM 12/6/01, Herman wrote: >Yes Eric, you have found a sensible alternate interpretation of the >footnote. Very clever. > >However, the WBFLC have stated that : >a) this was not their original intention I find this hard to believe. If their original intention was as they now claim, they surely could have written the footnote to say something that came even vaguely close to what they intended. >b) this is not their current interpretation But their current interpretation is impossible to rule in accordance with. Perhaps they have simply lost their minds. >why then labour the point ? Because I do not like making rulings that are arbitrary, capricious, potentially biased and unfair, and because there's no way I can base rulings on different standards of "irrationality" for different players and convince my customers that that is not what I am doing. >And yes, the lmanguage is superfluous, but how are you going to define >a boundary except by giving some words for things on either side of >it. The WBFLC tell us that on one side of the boundary is careless >and inferior, on the other is irrational, and they tell us that the >boundary depends on the class of player. What more do you want ? I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" is! If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to tell me that I must nevertheless base my ruling on it. I could also use some help in figuring out how to explain my rulings in a polite and ZT-acceptable manner. When I allow a claim for one player and disallow the same claim for another, telling the latter "We ruled in his favor but against you because, in my humble opinion, his declarer play is reasonable but yours sucks" just doesn't hack it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 09:23:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MNAS19298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:23:10 +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 fB6MN4H19294 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:23:05 +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 fB6MG2m05717 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:16:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000b01c17ea3$7b0552c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206080932.00b3a960@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:15:11 -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: "Eric Landau" > At 08:59 AM 12/5/01, Herman wrote: > > >To use your example, the usual player missing a double squeeze is > >called normal because it is careless (for him). > > > >To the expert hailing from Sweden, it is deemed not normal. > >Why ? because to him, it is judged "irrational" to miss it. > > That is the problem. "Irrational", unlike "'normal'", has its usual > English meaning in this context, as TFLB does not provide us, as it > does for "'normal'", with a specific definition (the footnote) that > tells us otherwise. And there's no way that for anyone to miss a > double squeeze could be considered "irrational" by the usual English > meaning of the word. > > >So irrational needs the same quelification "for the class of player > >involved". > I had always thought that the word "irrational" in the footnotes referred to actions like overtaking an honor unecessarily, turning a smaller card into a winner, leading the smallest from AKQJx, things like that. Although possible to lose a trick by such actions, it would be irrational to do so. The comma was in the right place, because such irrational actions are irrational for all, whereas careless or inferior might be based (ugh!) on the class of player involved. 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 Dec 7 09:33:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MX9I19311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:33:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6MX3H19307 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:33:04 +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 fB6MPwH92374 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:25:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206171542.00b3c9a0@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, 06 Dec 2001 17:28:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011206104720.00a16af0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <000901c17dad$d1271c20$65b97ad5@pbncomputer> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011205101550.00a13180@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:13 PM 12/6/01, Grant wrote: >At 04:56 PM 12/5/01 +0000, David Burn wrote: >>Grant wrote: >> >> > [snip] >> > All of this is irrelevant. I could just as easily >> > argue that the footnote is absurd on the grounds that a >> > play that is careless or inferior for my class of player >> > is not 'normal', since 'normal' means "what usually occurs" >> > and it is impossible to say that I _usually_ play in >> > ways that are inferior _for me_. >> > But, in fact, 'normal' [in the context of claims] >> > does not mean what 'normal' means in ordinary usage, and >> > equally there is no reason to suppose that 'irrational' >> > [in the context of claims] means 'insane, totally beyond the >> > bounds of reason'. {In fact, I should say that '_unpardonably_ >> > careless' is a fair definition of 'irrational'.} >> > >> > I understand you have coherent reasons for wanting >> > claims to be adjudicated differently, but this linguistic >> > argument is a non-starter, IMHO. >> >>I am a little perturbed by this. It seems to me that the words in the >>Laws mean what they mean in English usage, otherwise they do not mean >>anything at all. Of course, I would have no difficulty - indeed, The words in the Laws mean what they mean in English usage, otherwise they do not mean anything at all, *except* when the Laws specifically provide us with an alternative definition of a particular word. > I submit, then, that 'normal' cannot mean what it >_usually_ means in English usage [at least not this side of >the pond] and also mean what it means in the footnote. In the context of L69-71, "normal" *does* not mean what it usually means in English usage, because the footnote provides an alternative definition of "normal" (note the quotes around it in the footnote, which specifically indicate that it is being defined there) and instructs us to use it in that particular sense. There is, however, no footnote to or alternative definition given for "irrational", so we must resort to the dictionary to interpret it in context. Just because a particular word is redefined for a particular usage in specific piece of text doesn't mean that the ordinary English words used to redefine it are themselves subject to some analogous redefinition. 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 Dec 7 09:40:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6Mec419329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:40:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6MeXH19325 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:40:33 +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 fB6MXTT80561 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:33:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206173238.00b3d980@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, 06 Dec 2001 17:35:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <200112062124.fB6LO0q20758@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <000c01c17dc5$6a7a16e0$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 04:24 PM 12/6/01, Ron wrote: > > Treat everyone in an event as equals. Equal to what? To what the TD/AC > > considers to be the average ability of players in the event. Then what > > is irrational would depend on the level of the event, and identical > > situations arising in the event would get identical treatment. > >This seems a worst of all worlds idea. Apply the same set of laws and standards to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color or bridge ability? Give two players facing identical adjudications of identical situations the same ruling? Surely we can think of worse ideas. 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 Dec 7 09:43:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MhOx19345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:43:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6MhJH19341 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:43:19 +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 fB6MaGm16451 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:36:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002701c17ea6$48f87d40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112061512.KAA18121@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:28:39 -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" > This would be another good place for the LC to simplify the language or > even to simplify the laws by, for example, going back to the two trick > penalty for all revokes. That's going pretty far back, Steve, 1963. Why not just go back to 1975-1987, when the revoker lost the revoking trick (if won), and one of any tricks taken afterwards? That was simple enough for everyone to understand, and a little more equitable. If the penalty wasn't sufficient to offset damage, then of course it could be increased by the TD accordingly. As is now the case. 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 Dec 7 09:47:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6Ml1X19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:47:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6MktH19354 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:46:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB6MdkB02991 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:39:46 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200112062239.fB6MdkB02991@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:39:46 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Marvin L. French" at Dec 06, 2001 02:15:11 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:15:11 -0800 > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 08:59 AM 12/5/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >To use your example, the usual player missing a double squeeze is > > >called normal because it is careless (for him). > > > > > >To the expert hailing from Sweden, it is deemed not normal. > > >Why ? because to him, it is judged "irrational" to miss it. > > > > That is the problem. "Irrational", unlike "'normal'", has its usual > > English meaning in this context, as TFLB does not provide us, as it > > does for "'normal'", with a specific definition (the footnote) that > > tells us otherwise. And there's no way that for anyone to miss a > > double squeeze could be considered "irrational" by the usual English > > meaning of the word. > > > > >So irrational needs the same quelification "for the class of player > > >involved". > > > I had always thought that the word "irrational" in the footnotes > referred to actions like overtaking an honor unecessarily, turning a > smaller card into a winner, leading the smallest from AKQJx, things > like that. Although possible to lose a trick by such actions, it would > be irrational to do so. The comma was in the right place, because such > irrational actions are irrational for all, whereas careless or > inferior might be based (ugh!) on the class of player involved. > And I have always thought that irrational was essentially "irrational for all classes of players." I agree with Eric that it is very hard to rule a claim legitimate and without penalty for one player and not for another. If I ruled that Steve Robinson could make a certain claim in our regular weekly unit game and Flight C, Mrs. Guggenheim couldn't, I guarantee you I'd be hearing about it for a while. To the Flight C player, some already have the idea that they shouldn't bother to call the director when playing against better players since the directors always seem to favor the better players. We don't need to encourage this. We do try to explain as much as possible about rulings for our lower flight players to discourage such a thought, but it takes regular work to do this. And having rulings that are based on 'ftcopi" only work against us. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 09:49:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MnJP19370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:49:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6MnDH19366 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:49:14 +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 RAA26040 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:42:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA19200 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:42:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:42:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112062242.RAA19200@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Why not just go back to 1975-1987, when the revoker lost the revoking > trick (if won), and one of any tricks taken afterwards? Too lenient to the revoker (IMHO). Many (most?) revokes where the revoke trick isn't won but a winner is saved for later will end up costing nothing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 09:52:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6MqmZ19382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:52:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6MqgH19378 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:52:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB6MjY403137 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:45:34 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200112062245.fB6MjY403137@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:45:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Ron Johnson" at Dec 06, 2001 04:24:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ron Johnson > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:24:00 -0500 (EST) > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > Sometimes I wonder whether, if defined at all, 'normal' > > > should be what is "not irrational but which is inferior or, > > > for the class of player, careless". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I'll throw a suggestion into the pot: > > > > Treat everyone in an event as equals. Equal to what? To what the TD/AC > > considers to be the average ability of players in the event. Then what > > is irrational would depend on the level of the event, and identical > > situations arising in the event would get identical treatment. > > This seems a worst of all worlds idea. > > Discourages claims by strong players -- they're held to a standard below > themselves. > > Encourages poorly thought out claims by weaker players -- let the TD > sort it out, but granting them a standard of play higher than their own. > > I could accept lowest common denominator though. I don't have any real > objection to encouraging stronger players to claim with a well thought > out statement. > I do tend to agree with this. However, I think that it should also be encouraged that players when they can, should try to determine the level of their opponents and claim accordingly. For example, if playing in day 3 of the Blue Ribbon Pairs, you can expect your opponents to be playing high enough level to understand a strip and end play. When playing in a Statafeed event against flight C players, you might want to limit your claims to those that are easy to explain in just a few words. If not, play an extra trick or two to get to that stage. In my experience, the low to middling players who complain the most about claims from better players have complaints because the better players did not make a clear and concise claim. They either just laid the hand down, threw it in "claiming X tricks" or said something that was just plain confusing to them as opponents. What I typically do in a claim, is lay my cards out in the order that I'm playing saying "ruff a spade, draw two trumps pitching clubs, and run the diamonds in hand. So I'll lay down my hand with the spade on the left, the two clubs next and then the diamonds in order. I find that putting the cards in order when claiming tends to make it easier for the opponents to follow a claim. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 09:54:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6Mspm19394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:54:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB6MsjH19390 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:54:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB6MlbZ03256 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:47:37 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200112062247.fB6MlbZ03256@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:47:37 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Eric Landau" at Dec 06, 2001 05:35:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:35:38 -0500 > From: Eric Landau > > At 04:24 PM 12/6/01, Ron wrote: > > > > Treat everyone in an event as equals. Equal to what? To what the TD/AC > > > considers to be the average ability of players in the event. Then what > > > is irrational would depend on the level of the event, and identical > > > situations arising in the event would get identical treatment. > > > >This seems a worst of all worlds idea. > > Apply the same set of laws and standards to everyone, regardless of > race, creed, color or bridge ability? Give two players facing > identical adjudications of identical situations the same > ruling? Surely we can think of worse ideas. > Eric, I think you missed the point. Ron's argument was not that ruling the same was the worst of all possible worlds, but selecting an "average" standard was. He advocated using the same standard for everyone, but that it be a standard of lowest common denominator instead of an average standard. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 10:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB6NNDn23504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:23:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB6NN5H23485 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:23:07 +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 fB6NFw905585; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:15:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:13:00 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim To: Ted Ying cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200112062245.fB6MjY403137@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <20011206181601-R01010800-45330cc0-0904-0109@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 12/6/01 at 5:45 PM, ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) wrote: > In my experience, the low to middling players who complain the most > about claims from better players have complaints because the better > players did not make a clear and concise claim. In mine, such players often don't give me a chance to state a line of play. The scenario goes something like this: Me: "I have the rest. I..." Opp: "Play it out." Me: "That's not allowed. We have to call the director if you have a problem, but you should let me state my line of play." Opp: "What?" Me: "My line of play is [whatever]." Opp: "Please play it out." Me: "Director!" Well, that was how it used to go. Now I just call the TD after the first "play it out." I do try not to claim against players of this caliber, but sometimes I don't realize they *are* of this caliber until it's too late. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71k2X29229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71jsH29222 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:45:54 +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 16C9yQ-0005dz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:38:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:32:00 +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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >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? AQ of trumps over the suit, strong club opposite. I'd be terrified. Now if he had AKQJ of trumps *and* an Acol 2C opposite he could expect 4S to go down at least one time in three. -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kJI29250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71k9H29237 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:10 +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 16C9ye-0005dz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:10:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team in Switzerland References: <200111171321.IAA12650@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200111171321.IAA12650@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. > >> 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? An interesting idea. Last time I suggested I was pooh-poohed. So now I shall suggest it again but call it the Willner rule .... -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kVo29263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71kEH29244 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:14 +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 16C9yg-0006du-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:25:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f901c17892$b3823da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f901c17892$b3823da0$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: "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. While I was in Las Vegas I was told that this guideline was never official. It was meant as a throwaway comment to cover a specific situation and not designed for general publication. I also know which blabbermo... errrr highly respected member of the Committee promulgated it. According to my information officially there is no such guideline. -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kd729266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:39 +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-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 fB71kLH29259 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:22 +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 16C9yn-000GOF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:16 +0000 Message-ID: <9xslOWIiCAE8EwtI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:34:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Marvin L. French writes >From: David Stevenson >> 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. No-one, including the man who wrote it, understands where the first sentence of the Committee Decision comes from. It was not what we decided at all and not what he meant. It was a pity that he was not given the chance to see a draft before publication. After some considerable time it was decided that E/W should not get redress since East/West should not manage a non-forcing auction where one of them knows they have game values. Now, why did we not adjust for North/South only? I blame myself for not drawing the AC's notice too this. It was my first day on ACBL ACs, I was wondering a little quite how I should act, I knew that while a majority were pleased to see me on appeals it was not unanimous, and I was having troubles with the language. :)) I am not saying the decision about North/South would have been different since I cannot and will not speak for other members of the AC. I am merely saying that I was completely in error in not suggesting the approach should have been different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kY429264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71kHH29249 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:18 +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 16C9yg-0006dd-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:20:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >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? Well, you did! Regrettably I missed Eric Landau and Joan Gerard [though I have met Joan at several earlier events]. -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kCg29238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71k4H29231 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:05 +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 16C9yZ-000GOF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:05:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C2 too: was: To many VP's; was: Law 81C again References: <200111150107.UAA21553@cfa183.harvard.edu> <015a01c170de$2059ef20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <01c001c170e8$55df36a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <01c001c170e8$55df36a0$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 >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). How on earth can it be enormous? If a table gets a score of +450 when it should be +170 then the effect on other tables is no more than an imp or two [factored up if that is the way you do x-imps]. Not only is their nothing in the Laws to suggest that PTF has any validity it always results in trivia anyway and is nowhere near the amount of worry spent on it. >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. What for? -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71kc629265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71kEH29245 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:15 +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 16C9yg-000GOi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: <3NGnhwHWx$D8EwG0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:16:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C References: <002401c17a07$c2c78560$8b487bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002401c17a07$c2c78560$8b487bd5@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: "Kooijman, A." >> 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 >> multiplied 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. >+=+ Whereas I do not see it in that light. Each of the >sides at the table is entitled, in its own right, to a fair >comparison with the other teams in the event. It does >not get a fair comparison if you shave off part of the >score which it should fairly receive. In fashioning the >laws we made a positive decision that teams at a >table where there is a misadventure of some kind are >to be protected in their scores and that other teams >in the tournament have no rights in the matter. This >was particularly reflected in Law 92A - "a ruling made >at his table" - excluding the right of any other >contestant to intervene. The question concerns an >aspect of the laws that was not unforeseen, did not >come about by accident, but which is the outcome >of deliberation and decision. > If the objective were never to award a total >exceeding 30VPs between two teams when they >meet, then equity would require the introduction >of fresh dynamics in the scoring so that all scores to >be compared were mitigated in the same degree as >those of teams that have been denied.their full dues >as innocent or partially innocent parties. We chose >instead to allow each such team its just score, to >be compared with the unreconstructed scores of >other teams in the tournament; it seemed slightly >less complex. > And how should we allow a non-offending side >only 50% on a board if its immediate opponent is >equally non-offending, but 60% when its immediate >opponent has unclean hands? Let us stop thinking about results such as 17-14 on a 30 scale. Experience as a player, if nothing else, suggests to me they are quite fair, and it is only psychology against them. Suppose that the results from a round are: AvB 17-14 CvF 23- 7 EvD 22- 6.5 Let us start expressing such results for what they really are: scores applied to carious teams, thus the correct scores for the above round are: A 17 B 14 C 23 D 6.5 E 22 F 7 There is no reason given the laws of bridge why the two sides should balance so let us not show them in a form where it is seen to be a problem. -- 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 Dec 7 12:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB71k6d29232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:46:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB71jrH29221 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:45:54 +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 16C9yO-000GOi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:38:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:27:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Quango MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We took Quango to the vet today, and she said it is just a matter of time. We shall lose him, probably early next year. He is still a very happy cat. -- 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 Dec 7 15:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB74ANQ11629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fB74AGH11611 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:10:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 8744 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 04:03:14 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 0.870171 secs); 07 Dec 2001 04:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.49) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 04:03:13 -0000 Message-ID: <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Declarer's OLOT Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:55:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Declarer makes the opening lead out of turn. What happens now? Is this an exposed card during the auction period? Since the auction period ends when the lead (defender's) is made. Can a defender accept this lead? Is the defender entitled to see the dummy before playing to the trick? It happened at the club this afternoon. TIA Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 15:27:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB74RYm13315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:27:34 +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 fB74RTH13311 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:27:29 +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 fB74KPm17780 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:20:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009c01c17ed6$0450f480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112062242.RAA19200@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of "subsequently" in L64A2 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:14:50 -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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French > > Why not just go back to 1975-1987, when the revoker lost the revoking > > trick (if won), and one of any tricks taken afterwards? > > Too lenient to the revoker (IMHO). Many (most?) revokes where the > revoke trick isn't won but a winner is saved for later will end up > costing nothing. So? Lots of infractions that cause no damage aren't penalized. Maybe you are looking for a greater deterrent effect, to discourage revoking. But "the Laws are designed primarily not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." It is enough for a law to guarantee at a minimum full redress for an irregularity. If that can be done in simple fashion without requiring a search for "equity," there is no need to look further out of a desire to punish. Besides, I think the previous law had lots of deterrent effect. 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 Dec 7 15:36:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB74aZQ13561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:36:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB74aSH13542 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:36:29 +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 EAA32550 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:29:33 GMT Message-ID: <8Bnk+gGaTEE8EwON@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:26:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's OLOT References: <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop>, Wayne Burrows writes >Declarer makes the opening lead out of turn. > >What happens now? > >Is this an exposed card during the auction period? Since the auction period >ends when the lead (defender's) is made. > >Can a defender accept this lead? IMO, No. I'd tell declarer to pick it up again > >Is the defender entitled to see the dummy before playing to the trick? > >It happened at the club this afternoon. > >TIA > >Wayne > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 7 15:37:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB74bkL13778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:37:46 +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 fB74baH13753 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:37:36 +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 fB74UXm20193 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:30:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a401c17ed7$6b7ce460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200112062247.fB6MlbZ03256@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:19:00 -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 From: "Ted Ying" > > Eric, I think you missed the point. Ron's argument was not that > ruling the same was the worst of all possible worlds, but selecting > an "average" standard was. He advocated using the same standard > for everyone, but that it be a standard of lowest common denominator > instead of an average standard. Maybe just a low standard. The "lowest" in the recent Life Master Pairs at Las Vegas was unbelievably low. Anyway, some standard. 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 Dec 7 15:37:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB74bkT13780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:37:46 +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 fB74baH13755 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:37:37 +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 fB74UXm20197 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:30:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a501c17ed7$6bc7a900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002301c17536$25212ee0$6c01a8c0@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:26:50 -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: "David Stevenson" > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >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? > > Well, you did! > > Regrettably I missed Eric Landau and Joan Gerard [though I have met > Joan at several earlier events]. > I missed a whole bunch of people I wanted to meet, but David and I were both at the LC meeting so I got to meet him at last. I wish someone would organize a BLML breakfast in Houston. I tried in Toronto, but it seemed like everyone had schedule conflicts except the two of us who showed. It's someone else's turn to try. Or, we could get more formal: Schedule a meeting room with coffee and doughnuts, name a chairman, come up with an agenda, and have at it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 16:15:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB75FAZ21445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:15:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from elsewhere.fragment.com ([198.179.16.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB75F3H21435 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:15:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from elsewhere.fragment.com (IDENT:523@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsewhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27933 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:05:58 -0500 Message-Id: <200112070505.AAA27933@elsewhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:56:44 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20011204125219.00ac1e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:05:58 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <5.1.0.14.0.20011204125219.00ac1e50@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheine r writes: >At 11:10 3/12/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >>Anyway, I think it >>should be a regulation (which are widely applied loosely), not a change >>in the Laws. >> >>"Players are encouraged not to claim until one hand contains all the >>claimed tricks, or the remainder of the tricks can be won with a >>cross-ruff using high trumps." It seems to me that this regulation would have no power whatsoever. >AG : what about : "Players are encouraged not to claim unless they could >state in at most n words how they intend to play" ? (n could be 5, 7, 10 >according to how restrictive you want to be), possibly accompanied by >"longer statements will be considered de facto as imprecise" That's just begging for imprecise claims. A thorough claim statement, even when it involves nothing but high tricks and ruffs, is not a short beast, especially early in the hand. "Win the lead, pull trump, ruff a club, give you the diamond ace, the rest are mine." This will work against all but the players who just don't get claims at all. Now, it could perhaps be shortened, but the less verbose it is, the more likely it is to cause problems against weaker opponents. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "Elementary penguins singing Hare Krishna Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe" -- The Beatles -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 16:31:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB75UmW24894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:30:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB75UgH24884 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:30:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id fB75NZx22790 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id AAA29511; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:23:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:23:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200112070523.AAA29511@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >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? >> >> Well, you did! >> >> Regrettably I missed Eric Landau and Joan Gerard [though I have >met >> Joan at several earlier events]. >> >I missed a whole bunch of people I wanted to meet, but David and I >were both at the LC meeting so I got to meet him at last. > >I wish someone would organize a BLML breakfast in Houston. I tried in >Toronto, but it seemed like everyone had schedule conflicts except the >two of us who showed. It's someone else's turn to try. > >Or, we could get more formal: Schedule a meeting room with coffee and >doughnuts, name a chairman, come up with an agenda, and have at it. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California Maybe I have the date/year wrong, but isn't the World Championship in Montreal next year? Half way between Europe and California, safe, cheap, and some of the best food in the world (best bagels, anyway!). I would go out of my way (well, 1.5 hours out of my way) to meet you all there. I might even get Ron Johnson to come out; indeed, I might have no choice: I have no sence of direction, and otherwise could end up in Toronto by mistake! Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 19:13:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB78CkS02818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:12:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB78CeH02814 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:12:41 +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 fB785bm10631 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:05:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <011801c17ef4$dbadb940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Paris Appeals Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:50:22 -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 Where can the Paris Appeals be viewed, please? I have been asked my opinion on No.3, but can't find 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 Dec 7 19:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB78VsV02832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:31:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB78VmH02828 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB78OW301666 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:24:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer's OLOT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:24:30 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/07/2001 09:24:32 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Declarer makes the opening lead out of turn. > What happens now? > Is this an exposed card during the auction period? > Since the auction period ends when the lead > (defender's) is made. Yes The effect will be clear if, before making the opening lead any defender (to become) is permitted because of misinformation (Law 21B1) to withdraw his final pass and continue the auction (with another call). In such a case the assumed to become dummy will have to pass on his next turn (Law24B), and it is even possible that the declaring and defending sides will be swapped. > Can a defender accept this lead? No > Is the defender entitled to see the dummy before > playing to the trick? Not applicable Sven > It happened at the club this afternoon. > TIA > Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 21:15:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7AESi02884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:14:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f136.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7AENH02880 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:14:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:07:19 -0800 Received: from 172.173.23.193 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:07:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.173.23.193] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 02:07:18 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2001 10:07:19.0213 (UTC) FILETIME=[F48765D0:01C17F06] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >Maybe I have the date/year wrong, but isn't the World Championship >in Montreal next year? Half way between Europe and California, >safe, cheap, and some of the best food in the world (best bagels, >anyway!). Yes, it is in Montreal. I would suggest an order of poutine from La Belle Province for low-brow decadence. It's also the only other city in the world where I suggest my London strategy -- never eat where the staff speak English as a first language. ;) -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 Dec 7 21:37:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Ab1L02910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:37:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7AatH02906 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:36:55 +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 LAA08222; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:26:38 +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 LAA07654; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:29:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207112446.02a83540@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:31:05 +0100 To: Ron Johnson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <200112062124.fB6LO0q20758@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <000c01c17dc5$6a7a16e0$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 16:24 6/12/2001 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >Encourages poorly thought out claims by weaker players -- let the TD >sort it out, but granting them a standard of play higher than their own. > >I could accept lowest common denominator though. I don't have any real >objection to encouraging stronger players to claim with a well thought >out statement. AG : Experience tells us that weaker players seldom find a fabulous line of play, except by chance, and in this case they can't explain it rationally. (where did I put the plate with the almond biscuits ?) However, the same experience tells us that stronger players might have a blind spot. This means that, if a "general standard" must be choosen for what is irrational or simply careless, I'd rether see it very low. Many errors are possible in some contexts, even errors that *should* be far below the player's ability. To cut it short, "irrational" must continue to mean "irrational", eg in the ocntext of a claim, clashing honors, making finesses that can't win, and the like. If a player doesn't specify that he unblocks, he could be deemed to have forgotten that he had to unblock (else, why didn't he state it ?) And surely, miscounting is not irrational. It happens everywhere and everytime, even by strong players. Regards, Alain. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 21:50:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7AoB002930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:50:11 +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 (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7Ao5H02926 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:50:05 +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 LAA17040; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:42:51 +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 LAA19972; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:42:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207113711.02a82160@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:44:20 +0100 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's OLOT In-Reply-To: <8Bnk+gGaTEE8EwON@asimere.com> References: <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop> <003901c17f83$18cfcf00$3c18b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:26 7/12/2001 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Declarer makes the opening lead out of turn. > > > >What happens now? > > > >Is this an exposed card during the auction period? Since the auction period > >ends when the lead (defender's) is made. AG : the auction period is indded still open. So we look at L24, which tells us that *if the card is a defender's* it will become a penalty card, and that willingly played cards (24B) create forced passes. Since the first item doesn't apply to declarer, and since the second is of no imoprtance (three consecutive passes in rotation did happen, making further bids void), I can't say what declarer's obligations could be. The defense gets its usual slight advantage in seeing one more card, full stop. > >Can a defender accept this lead? > >IMO, No. I'd tell declarer to pick it up again AG : L54 only speaks about LOOT by defenders. If it was meant to cover declarer's LOOT too, declarer could LOOT and tranfer the play to his partner. Too easy. Thus it doesn't (reductio at absurdum). Since it is the only law that tells us a LOOT may be accepted, there are no grounds on which to let him accept the lead. 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 Dec 7 21:55:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7AswJ02942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:54:58 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7AsmH02938 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:54:49 +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 LAA12123; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:44:34 +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 LAA24591; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:47:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207114542.00ac4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:49:01 +0100 To: Julian Lighton , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-Reply-To: <200112070505.AAA27933@elsewhere.fragment.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:05 7/12/2001 -0500, Julian Lighton wrote: >That's just begging for imprecise claims. A thorough claim statement, >even when it involves nothing but high tricks and ruffs, is not a >short beast, especially early in the hand. > >"Win the lead, pull trump, ruff a club, give you the diamond ace, the >rest are mine." AG : what I meant is that one could perhaps restrict acceptable claims to those which are much simpler than that. If the claim needs such a long explanation, it is best avoided. I did not mean that long claims should be made short, but that long claims should be discouraged. YMMV, but surely any imprecise claim should be avoided, in any version of the jurisprudency, and artificially shortened claims are among those. 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 Dec 7 22:44:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Bhgo04247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:43:42 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7BhaH04243 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:43:36 +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 MAA22428; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:33:24 +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 MAA09297; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:36:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207122937.00acdb60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:37:52 +0100 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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 02:07 7/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >>Maybe I have the date/year wrong, but isn't the World Championship >>in Montreal next year? Half way between Europe and California, >>safe, cheap, and some of the best food in the world (best bagels, >>anyway!). > > Yes, it is in Montreal. I would suggest an order of poutine from La > Belle Province for low-brow decadence. AG : I'm at a loss with this sentence. Do you mean that the Belle Province will be handled some honorific distinction by the Russian number one ? Or that, as a matter of gastronomy, you want to order a poutine (Swiss speciality based on chips and cheese, which seems decadent indeed) ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 7 23:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7CToK04271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:29:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f56.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7CTiH04267 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:22:35 -0800 Received: from 172.173.23.193 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:22:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.173.23.193] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 04:22:35 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2001 12:22:35.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA40BBF0:01C17F19] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Alain Gottcheiner >At 02:07 7/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> Yes, it is in Montreal. I would suggest an order of poutine from La >>Belle Province for low-brow decadence. > >AG : I'm at a loss with this sentence. >Do you mean that the Belle Province will be handled some honorific >distinction by the Russian number one ? Unless I've forgotten or mangled the name, La Belle Province is a fast-food restuarant chain found in Quebec. I'm not sure what Russian has to do with this (1 - odin, 1st - pervii). >Or that, as a matter of gastronomy, you want to order a poutine (Swiss >speciality based on chips and cheese, which seems decadent indeed) ? Yes, and don't forget the gravy. -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 Dec 7 23:57:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7CqPO04293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:52:26 +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 fB7CqFH04285 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:52:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.242]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB7Cj8J20054 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:45:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C10B226.2080004@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:12:22 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How is it possible Eric, how is it possible ... Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:42 AM 12/6/01, Herman wrote: > >> Yes Eric, you have found a sensible alternate interpretation of the >> footnote. Very clever. >> >> However, the WBFLC have stated that : >> a) this was not their original intention > > > I find this hard to believe. If their original intention was as they > now claim, they surely could have written the footnote to say something > that came even vaguely close to what they intended. > They have stated this was their original intention......... How can you find this hard to believe? They have stated it. >> b) this is not their current interpretation > > > But their current interpretation is impossible to rule in accordance > with. Perhaps they have simply lost their minds. > Nice one ... I'll let Ton, Grattan, Antonio, Kojak answer that one. As to it being impossible, speak for yourself please. I find it perfectly possible. >> why then labour the point ? > > > Because I do not like making rulings that are arbitrary, capricious, > potentially biased and unfair, and because there's no way I can base > rulings on different standards of "irrationality" for different players > and convince my customers that that is not what I am doing. > Why would it be wrong? Can Mrs Guggenheim not accept that some play she might consider is deemed irrational fro Bob Hamman. Mrs G must have a low esteem of world champions ! >> And yes, the lmanguage is superfluous, but how are you going to define >> a boundary except by giving some words for things on either side of >> it. The WBFLC tell us that on one side of the boundary is careless >> and inferior, on the other is irrational, and they tell us that the >> boundary depends on the class of player. What more do you want ? > > > I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a > claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" is! > If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to tell me that > I must nevertheless base my ruling on it. > Well, that's just one more problem you'll have to deal with. Nobody said directing had to be easy. But telling Bob Hamman that he is deemed to play the 2 from AK2 opposite QJxx because Mrs G might do this is not the way forward either, you'll have to admit. > I could also use some help in figuring out how to explain my rulings in > a polite and ZT-acceptable manner. When I allow a claim for one player > and disallow the same claim for another, telling the latter "We ruled in > his favor but against you because, in my humble opinion, his declarer > play is reasonable but yours sucks" just doesn't hack it. > When have you ever had to deal with two same claims ? That is a silly argument and I'll hear no more about it. Sorry Eric, but you've lost the plot. > > 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/ > -- 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 Dec 7 23:57:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7CqQc04294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:52:26 +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 fB7CqFH04286 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:52:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.242]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB7Cj3J20014 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:45:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C0FB163.9080807@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:56:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206080932.00b3a960@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Eric, are you just not willing to understand, or are you trying to see how long you can string us along ? Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:59 AM 12/5/01, Herman wrote: > >> To use your example, the usual player missing a double squeeze is >> called normal because it is careless (for him). >> >> To the expert hailing from Sweden, it is deemed not normal. >> Why ? because to him, it is judged "irrational" to miss it. > > > That is the problem. "Irrational", unlike "'normal'", has its usual > English meaning in this context, as TFLB does not provide us, as it does > for "'normal'", with a specific definition (the footnote) that tells us > otherwise. And there's no way that for anyone to miss a double squeeze > could be considered "irrational" by the usual English meaning of the word. > Well, then call that "abnormal". We have "normal" (bridge sense) = "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" And we have "abnormal" (bridge sense) = "irrational". Now do you see that if we do not add 'for the class of player involved' to this word irrational, that we can have plays that are neither normal, nor abnormal, or else some that are both ? >> So irrational needs the same quelification "for the class of player >> involved". > > > Only if you wish to judge that it is "irrational" for Herman's Swedish > expert. Forget the example. If we consider a line not careless FTCOPI, then we must call it irrational FTCOPI. The FLB tells us that we must decide if it is the one or the other. The question whether it be irrational per se does not come into it. > I don't. > But you must. You must judge whether failing to execute a double squeeze is normal or abnormal. It is judged normal if you consider that the player might carelessly do so. You need to call it irrational before you can allow the claim on a double squeeze. Yet it is clearly not irrational for some. And yet it has been judged by at an AC to be "abnormal". How else can they say that it is abnormal than by saying that for this class of player, it is irrational to misplay a double squeeze. Again, please forget the example. If some appeal committee decides that you would make 4 tricks from AKx opposite QJxx then they are ruling that it is irrational for you to fail to make these 4 tricks. Yet you might imagine that there is a class of player out there that do not know how to handle that suit. For that class of player this misplay is normal, because careless, and thus not irrational. >> If you call it irrational for everyone to fail to execute a double >> squeeze (and you might), then you must say that this misplay is also >> merely "careless" for everyone. > > > It is not irrational for anyone. In my lexicon, it is careless for some > (of a high enough "class of player") but not others. But if you want to > call it careless for everyone, fine; it doesn't affect my argument. > >> But you cannot say that it is irrational for everyone, and at the same >> time not careless for GH. If you say that, what is it, normal or not ? > > > It is irrational for noone, and careless for GH. Whether we call it > "normal" or "careless" for a lesser class of player doesn't matter, as > the footnote tells us to regard either as "'normal'" by the special > definition provided by the footnote. > > > 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/ > -- 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 Dec 8 00:00:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7CudB04300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:56:39 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7CuXH04296 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:56:34 +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 NAA05711; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:46:11 +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 NAA11128; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:49:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207134424.00a966d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:50:40 +0100 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 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 04:22 7/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>AG : I'm at a loss with this sentence. >>Do you mean that the Belle Province will be handled some honorific >>distinction by the Russian number one ? > > Unless I've forgotten or mangled the name, La Belle Province is a > fast-food restuarant chain found in Quebec. I'm not sure what Russian > has to do with this (1 - odin, 1st - pervii). AG : well, I imagined there could be an Order of Poutine, in the same way as there once was an Order of Lenine. Too warped, perhaps. Or too glossocentric, because his name isn't spelled with 'e' in English as it is in French ? The gastronomical (?) allusion wasn't obvious at first, since for us French-speaking Europeans, La Belle Province is not a fast-food, but the nickname of Quebec itself. 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 Dec 8 00:07:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7D3Uv04329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:03:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7D3OH04325 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:03:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB7CuED13911 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:56:14 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's OLOT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:56:12 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/07/2001 13:56:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Declarer makes the opening lead out of turn. > > > >What happens now? > > > >Is this an exposed card during the auction period? Since the auction period > >ends when the lead (defender's) is made. > AG : the auction period is indded still open. So we look at L24, which > tells us that *if the card is a defender's* it will become a penalty card, > and that willingly played cards (24B) create forced passes. > Since the first item doesn't apply to declarer, and since the second is of > no imoprtance (three consecutive passes in rotation did happen, making > further bids void), I can't say what declarer's obligations could be. The > defense gets its usual slight advantage in seeing one more card, full stop. Law24 says "... if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, ..." While the auction is still opened (or reopened according to law21B1) there is not yet any declarer, dummy or defenders, just four players. Consider this auction: N - E - S - W 1H - Pass - 2S - Pass 4H - All pass At this time the declarer (North) leads a card and dummy (South) tells opponents (quite correctly) that North failed to alert his 2S bid. When questioned it is revealed that 2S was a kind of Splinter, showing max a singleton rather than as opponents might expect - a strong response showing spades. The correct ruling by the director is now to use Law21B and offer West to withdraw his last call and let the auction continue. West bids 4S. North judges he cannot make 5H so he doubles, East passes and South has to pass (penalty - Law24B) even if he holds the cards for an undisputable 5H bid and even if it reveals that every 4H contract was made with 11 tricks. North now has a major penalty card which he must lead. (And it is quite proper for West to have taken this into account when he decided to go for a 4S bid). There are many variations on this theme, but never make the error of believing that the auction is finally ended after three passes. > >Can a defender accept this lead? > >IMO, No. I'd tell declarer to pick it up again > AG : L54 only speaks about LOOT by defenders. If it was meant to cover > declarer's LOOT too, declarer could LOOT and tranfer the play to his > partner. Too easy. Thus it doesn't (reductio at absurdum). > Since it is the only law that tells us a LOOT may be accepted, there are no > grounds on which to let him accept the lead. As it should be clear from above: There is no declarer, dummy or defenders yet. This entire part of the post is irrelevant! > Best regards, > Alain. Same, Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 00:20:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7DFA504346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 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 stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7DF4H04342 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:15:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA17175; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:07:54 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 07 14:05:12 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 <01KBL88T7EP6002HGH@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:07:41 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:07:34 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:07:33 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_Re=3A_Re=3A_R=E9f=2E_=3A__=5BBLML=5D_Tric?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?k_12_claim?= 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 > Eric Landau wrote: > > But their current interpretation is impossible to rule in > accordance > > with. Perhaps they have simply lost their minds. I agree that you found an explanation for the fact that it seems impossible to organize a decent discussion. ton > > > Nice one ... I'll let Ton, Grattan, Antonio, Kojak answer > that one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 00:22:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7DLef04363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:21:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7DLZH04359 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:21:35 +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 fB7DESP48767 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:14:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011207080912.00b40390@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, 07 Dec 2001 08:16:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas In-Reply-To: References: <00f901c17892$b3823da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f901c17892$b3823da0$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 06:25 PM 12/6/01, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > >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. > > While I was in Las Vegas I was told that this guideline was never >official. It was meant as a throwaway comment to cover a specific >situation and not designed for general publication. I also know which >blabbermo... errrr highly respected member of the Committee promulgated >it. According to my information officially there is no such guideline. Too late. The throwaway comment got published in the ACBL Bulletin, and thus became de facto policy, as the Bulletin is the only official publication of the ACBL that the vast majority of its member receive. If one believes all of the revisionist statements from ACBL officials, it's far from the first throwaway comment not designed for general publication that wound up in general publication. There seems to be a general pattern of: invent a policy, publish it in the Bulletin, determine from the reaction that it was a stupid idea, then disavow it as not having any "official" status. If the last isn't pure revisionism, you'd think they'd include a disclaimer when they published the policy in the first place. 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 Dec 8 00:49:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7DnIc04387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:49:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7Dn8H04378 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:49:08 +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 fB7Dg2H51997 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:42:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011207083636.00b3f110@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, 07 Dec 2001 08:44:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <3C0FB163.9080807@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205080151.00abc830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206080932.00b3a960@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 12:56 PM 12/6/01, Herman wrote: >Forget the example. If we consider a line not careless FTCOPI, then we must call it irrational FTCOPI. >The FLB tells us that we must decide if it is the one or the other. The question whether it be >irrational per se does not come into it. This seems to be the fundamental premise of those who would argue that if "careless" is defined FTCOPI then "irrational" must be defined FTCOPI as well. But it is patently absurd. If someone plays a hand perfectly, which do we call it, careless or irrational? What the footnote says is: - If a play is careful and correct, we call it "normal". - If a play is careless and inferior, we call it "normal". - If a play is irrational, we call it "irrational". WTP? 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 Dec 8 00:49:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7DnI404386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:49:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7Dn8H04379 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:49:09 +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 OAA15789; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:38:57 +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 OAA28385; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:41:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207142946.00a9e610@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:43:25 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:_Re:_R=E9f._:__[BLML]_Trick_12_claim?= In-Reply-To: <3C10B226.2080004@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@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 13:12 7/12/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Why would it be wrong? Can Mrs Guggenheim not accept that some play she >might consider is deemed irrational fro Bob Hamman. Mrs G must have a low >esteem of world champions ! AG : if you consider the character Mrs Guggenheim, as originally designed, you're right. But remember many of Mrs Guggenheim's peers consider themselves as Hamman's. *Those* would be difficult to deal with. But, once again, I'd like to emphasize that every expert sometimes plays in a Guggenheim fashion. Those who think I'm exaggerating might wish to read, in the December issue of The Bridge World, the narration of the US playoffs. Miscounting hands, miscouting available tricks, forgetting the bidding : the whole chambers of horrors stays there. I repeat : for an expert, making a Guggenheim-type mistake (or, more often, a Willie-type or a Walrus-type) is not irrational. It is just b****y careless, and it happens. Irrational means "it won't happen unless the player is out of his mind" ; inferior means "it could happen, and happened before, even if you don't believe it happened". Best regards, alain. >>>And yes, the lmanguage is superfluous, but how are you going to define a >>>boundary except by giving some words for things on either side of >>>it. The WBFLC tell us that on one side of the boundary is careless and >>>inferior, on the other is irrational, and they tell us that the boundary >>>depends on the class of player. What more do you want ? >> >>I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a >>claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" is! >>If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to tell me that I >>must nevertheless base my ruling on it. > > >Well, that's just one more problem you'll have to deal with. Nobody said >directing had to be easy. But telling Bob Hamman that he is deemed to >play the 2 from AK2 opposite QJxx because Mrs G might do this is not the >way forward either, you'll have to admit. > > >>I could also use some help in figuring out how to explain my rulings in a >>polite and ZT-acceptable manner. When I allow a claim for one player and >>disallow the same claim for another, telling the latter "We ruled in his >>favor but against you because, in my humble opinion, his declarer play is >>reasonable but yours sucks" just doesn't hack it. > > >When have you ever had to deal with two same claims ? That is a silly >argument and I'll hear no more about it. > >Sorry Eric, but you've lost the plot. > >>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/ > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 01:20:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7EKNR04416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:20:23 +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 fB7EKHH04412 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:20:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA05670; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:13:12 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 07 15:10:32 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 <01KBLAI2J30A002IQ3@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:12:22 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:12:18 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:12:18 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] UI To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.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 I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion about the following: Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 01:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7EpXk04437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:51:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7EpSH04432 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:51:28 +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 16CMEe-0001SZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:44:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:55:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L6D3 References: <200111212124.QAA27879@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200111212124.QAA27879@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 >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? It is quite normal for a board to be redealt for this type of reason so long as it has not been played anywhere. Suppose you play a board and pass it on. The next table finds it is 12-14. No redeal, otherwise players would know what to do when their opponents make a grand slam off an ace. Now suppose you deal a board, pick your cards out and look at them, and then discover they are 14-12. A redeal is normal if this is the first time the board is played. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 01:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7EpfQ04442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:51:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7EpYH04438 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:51:35 +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 16CMEl-000Pdq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:59:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] L6D3 References: <000201c17456$00558a60$6d0d073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <000201c17456$00558a60$6d0d073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Martin writes >From: >> 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. http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.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 Dec 8 02:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7F4Jx04469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:04:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7F4DH04465 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:04:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB7Ev8o03249; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:57:08 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:57:08 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB7Ev8P01376; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:57:08 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:57:08 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 OAA07709; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:57:07 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA03654; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:57:06 GMT Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:57:06 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200112071457.OAA03654@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton > Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes > and partner doubles after a long hesitation. > If any, what kind of UI do you receive? Partner has not enough or only just strength to double or partner has the wrong shape to double (too many clubs, afraid I might pull). > What authorized inf. does the double imply? A strong hand that does not want to bid a suit at the five level. Robin P.S. Since my five level decisions have been so consistently wrong/bonkers these last few weeks, I wouldn't listen to a word I say. -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 02:13:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7FD3O04485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:13:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7FCvH04481 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:12:58 +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 KAA17743 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA26535 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:05:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:05:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112071505.KAA26535@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > According to my information officially there is no such guideline. !!! That is certainly a surprise. We need _some_ guideline. Are there any from other NCBO'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 Sat Dec 8 02:29:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7FTAr04498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:29:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7FT4H04494 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:29:04 +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 PAA01320 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:22:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:17:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207134424.00a966d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011207134424.00a966d0@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 <5.1.0.14.0.20011207134424.00a966d0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 04:22 7/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >>>AG : I'm at a loss with this sentence. >>>Do you mean that the Belle Province will be handled some honorific >>>distinction by the Russian number one ? >> >> Unless I've forgotten or mangled the name, La Belle Province is a >> fast-food restuarant chain found in Quebec. I'm not sure what Russian >> has to do with this (1 - odin, 1st - pervii). > >AG : well, I imagined there could be an Order of Poutine, in the same way >as there once was an Order of Lenine. Too warped, perhaps. Or too >glossocentric, because his name isn't spelled with 'e' in English as it is >in French ? >The gastronomical (?) allusion wasn't obvious at first, since for us >French-speaking Europeans, La Belle Province is not a fast-food, but the >nickname of Quebec itself. > je dis, c'est beaucoup trop. John >Best regards, > > alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 03:02:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7G1nu04534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:01:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl ([217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7G1aH04530 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:01:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 34568371F30 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:54:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 4B5CA371B55 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:54:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007801c17f36$6c1ce8c0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@127.0.0.1> <3C10B226.2080004@village.uunet.be> Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:_Re:_R=E9f._:__=5BBLML=5D_Trick_12_claim?= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:43:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > When have you ever had to deal with two same claims ? That > is a silly argument and I'll hear no more about it. > Why is it silly, Herman? Suppose that you try to figure out what is the best lead from: A1053 Q654 J1075 5 after 1NT - 3NT and you run the computer simulation. The program generates 100 identical deals and you analyze them to see what opening lead is best. By them same token I might argue that the results are worthless - "have you ever been dealt the same hand 100 times in a row?". One of the major drawbacks of the present ruling system is that the rulings are given in a non-coherent, inconsistent way. Ii did happen to me that different rulings were given on almost the same sets of facts. But it seems that as the facts were not identical (and certainly they were not: in one case someone had CQ764 while he held CQ653 in another, in one case declarer said "small, please" while he said "low, please" in another) you grant yourself the right to turn down the other side's argument with a simple "that's silly. How can you claim that the rulings are inconsistent when no one has ever seen two identical bridge hands, let alone claims?". With all the respect - I am unpleasantly surprised. 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 Sat Dec 8 03:12:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7GCSP04572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:12:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7GCNH04568 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:12:23 +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 LAA20911 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA26652 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:05:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:05:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112071605.LAA26652@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > If any, what kind of UI do you receive? > From: Robin Barker 1> Partner has not enough or only just strength to double or 2> partner has the wrong shape to double (too many clubs, afraid I might pull). 3. Or a suit that is almost but not quite good enough to bid. 4. Or a two-suiter. (One of the suits will undoubtedly be better than 5Cx, but you have to guess which one.) I'd guess 3 might be most likely, but the hand one holds might suggest or rule out some of the possibilities. Knowledge of partner's ability and tendencies would also be important. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 03:23:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7GMgZ04591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:22:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7GM6H04587 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:22:07 +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 fB7GEPG14049; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:14:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011207095813.00a22ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:14:40 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@127.0.0.1> References: <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:53 PM 12/6/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: It seems pointless to argue about what the lawmakers meant when they wrote something, given that they have officially told us both what they meant at the time and how it is to be understood now. Nevertheless, I will continue to do so. :) argument. Herman's conclusion follows from his premise, but his premise is (according to the opposing argument) simply wrong; the footnote tells us specifically that carelessness is *not* "to be judged for 'the class of player involved'". What is does tell us is that whether or not the play was careless, we are to treat it as "normal". It tells us that we may not exclude lines that *may or may not be* careless (ftcopi); we may only exclude lines that are irrational. It tells us that we may *not* say things like, "For Mr. Hamman, that play would be so careless that we don't not believe he would actually do it, therefore we will not consider it when adjudicating his claim." >What convinces those who agree with me is that if Herman's and Ton's >reading were correct, it would have been very easy for the lawmakers to >have written the footnote a lot more clearly (I have suggested several >possible such rewordings in previous posts), Perhaps I should have taken the time to point out why I don't think they worked. I agree with you that the lawmakers were sending two messages: a) 'normal' does include careless and inferior plays, and b) it doesn't include irrational ones. Hence a revision such as "includes all plays that are not irrational for the class of player involved" is insufficient--it does not emphasize that 'normal' includes bad plays. Or, to put it another way, I don't think 'irrational' is anything at all as clear a word as you do, and so I think it can only be useful when contrasted with weaker words like 'careless' or 'inferior'. >whereas if my reading is correct, it would be a lot harder to rewrite the >footnote to make it any clearer. Perhaps something like, "For the >purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered "normal" even >if they would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, >but not irrational." That, it Isn't it monumentally odd to include the phrase "for the class of player involved" if the class of player involved is totally irrelevant to claim rulings? Isn't that waving a rather conspicuous red cape in front of a bull--encouraging TDs like me to think that we are supposed to judge class of player in making our rulings? Surely if this is what the lawmakers meant they should never have used those words at all, but simply said that it includes careless and inferior but not irrational plays. >seems to me, is a lot closer to the actual wording of the footnote than >any rewrite which would make Herman's and Ton's interpretation clearly correct. "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered "normal" even if they would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 03:39:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7GcmU04614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:38:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7GcPH04610 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:38:30 +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 fB7GUhG24203; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:30:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011207101451.00a25ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:30:59 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206171542.00b3c9a0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011206104720.00a16af0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c17dad$d1271c20$65b97ad5@pbncomputer> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011205101550.00a13180@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:28 PM 12/6/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >The words in the Laws mean what they mean in English usage, otherwise they >do not mean anything at all, *except* when the Laws specifically provide >us with an alternative definition of a particular word. As I said, _I_ don't think the English usage of "irrational" is anywhere close to being sufficiently clear to allow us to use it by itself. >> I submit, then, that 'normal' cannot mean what it >>_usually_ means in English usage [at least not this side of >>the pond] and also mean what it means in the footnote. > >In the context of L69-71, "normal" *does* not mean what it usually means >in English usage, because the footnote provides an alternative definition >of "normal" (note the quotes around it in the footnote, which specifically >indicate that it is being defined there) and instructs us to use it in >that particular sense. There is, however, no footnote to or alternative >definition given for "irrational", so we must resort to the dictionary to >interpret it in context. Why not resort to the context to interpret it in context? The context, to me, clearly suggests that the word here means "really dumb", by contrast with "careless or inferior", which mean "moderately dumb". My dictionary gives "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence" as a definition of "irrational". This would seem to mean that a) "irrational" is a relative term, since some people clearly have higher or lower usual degrees of mental clarity or coherence, and that b) careless or inferior plays are irrational, since they are, by their very nature, plays that lack one's usual mental coherence. So I submit: a) The word "irrational" can be and is used sometimes [often, in my experience] to mean something very close to "unpardonably careless". b) The word irrational can be and is used sometimes in a relative way, just as there are bridge plays that would be unpardonably careless for Hamman but standard for me. c) To claim that the official interpretation of the footnote contradicts the mean of the words would be false. d) To claim that the official interpretation of the footnote is _undesireable_ is perfectly reasonable and possibly correct, although I am not convinced. Ergo, I propose we concentrate our future discussion on 'd' alone. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 03:45:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7GiqW05390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:44:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7GijH05379 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:44:46 +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 QAA01469 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:37:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:33:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI 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 , Kooijman, A. writes >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion >about the following: > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > > My opinion is that when a player makes an out of tempo bid, rather than a pass, the UI transmitted is not clear, and thus the actions of his partner are much less constrained than where he makes a slow pass. In this case, the player may have been considering Pass, Double; or Double, Bid; or Pass, Double, Bid. In general a fast happy double will more likely be for penalties (but can be based on Quick Tricks rather than trumps,) and a slow doubtful double will show high cards, but the actions which are excluded as a result can not be determined by the advancer. Pass is definitely a LA, Bidding a 6 or 7 card suit is also a LA, particularly with a singleton or void club. I'm not inclined to adjust in these circumstances, unless the action is clearly both bizarre and successful. The AI aspect is that doubler thinks the contract is going down :) cheers john >ton >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 04:14:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7HDbQ06779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:13:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB7HDVH06775 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:13:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-22-99.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.22.99]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16COS6-0005Zu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 17:06:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:06:16 +0000 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 3:12 pm +0100 7/12/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion >about the following: > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > >ton -- This surely depends on what we have agreed to play the double as meaning. Whatever it means, the hesitation suggests that partner doesn't have it exactly. -- -- 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 Sat Dec 8 04:57:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7HvAC06801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:57:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7Hv4H06797 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:57:05 +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 fB7Ho0B26236 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:50:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001d01c17f47$7f433100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <000c01c17dc5$6a7a16e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011207112446.02a83540@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:48:32 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Ron Johnson" "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > At 16:24 6/12/2001 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > >Encourages poorly thought out claims by weaker players -- let the TD > >sort it out, but granting them a standard of play higher than their own. > > > >I could accept lowest common denominator though. I don't have any real > >objection to encouraging stronger players to claim with a well thought > >out statement. > > AG : Experience tells us that weaker players seldom find a fabulous line of > play, except by chance, and in this case they can't explain it rationally. > (where did I put the plate with the almond biscuits ?) However, the same > experience tells us that stronger players might have a blind spot. This > means that, if a "general standard" must be choosen for what is irrational > or simply careless, I'd rether see it very low. Many errors are possible in > some contexts, even errors that *should* be far below the player's ability. > To cut it short, "irrational" must continue to mean "irrational", eg in the > ocntext of a claim, clashing honors, making finesses that can't win, and > the like. If a player doesn't specify that he unblocks, he could be deemed > to have forgotten that he had to unblock (else, why didn't he state it ?) > And surely, miscounting is not irrational. It happens everywhere and > everytime, even by strong players. > I have a problem with claims based on a squeeze. We remember the recent case in which a squeeze claimant was induced (illegally) to play the hand out and mangled the play, the mangling somehow declared irrelevant by those handling the case. In order to execute a squeeze, one must have a firm knowledge of the squeezee's exact distribution at the time of the squeeze. A player could claim on a squeeze, knowing there is a squeeze but unsure that s/he will know whether a suit has been unguarded. Just claim the squeeze and lay the cards down. The TD will see the squeeze and grant it. This gives the squeezee no chance to discard deceptively in hopes that the claimer has been, or will be, inattentive. I'd be in favor of a Law that does not permit the claiming of a trick by means of a squeeze, but I don't know how to word that. 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 Dec 8 06:08:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7J88515691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 06:08:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7J82H15668 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 06:08:02 +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 fB7J0wB28525 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:00:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005d01c17f51$5a2a88a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:52:11 -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 > I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion > about the following: > > Your RHO in first seat opens 5 clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes > and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you > receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > The UI is that he does not have a clear-cut double. He may be close to a pass, or close to bidding instead of doubling, one cannot tell. Perhaps he has a short suit that he is afraid I will bid. Opposite such a hesitation, I would not take an action that caters particularly to any of those possibilities. I wouldn't pass with a six-card suit and some HCP, for instance. I would bid a slam if my hand seems to call for that (unlikely). Most of the time I would feel obliged to pass. My aim would be to avoid any raising of eyebrows by opponents when they see my hand, or an adverse TD 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 Sat Dec 8 09:45:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Mj1X25657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:45:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7MipH25648 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:51 +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 16CTcj-000Jaq-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:37:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:24:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's on first ? References: <20011119140347.97464.qmail@web12405.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011121114631.029a0510@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 >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 ... Why not? That is a regulation in force in certain jurisdictions, but how do you know it applies to Brian? {ok, ok, I know neither post was very serious} -- 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 Dec 8 09:45:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Mip325647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7MigH25636 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:43 +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 16CTca-000JbE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:37:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:34:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] UI References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion >about the following: > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? Perhaps we could work through it. What does a long hesitation imply? - surely doubt. So he has not got a completely standard double. What *is* a standard double? Probably high cards, but not much in clubs. Actually, one reason for doubt is holding too good a club holding. Two aces plus C KQJ is not a very good double since you would prefer to defend and partner might pull it. Sensibly though, partner will usually hesitate then pass with this hand! Another reason for doubt is distribution. Double might be best even with a 4=6=1=2 shape and fair hearts so long as the top cards are good enough. Of course there is the traditional reason: borderline pass/double on strength. So what UI is there?: partner is not a completely standard balanced hand with top cards and mediocre clubs. Really this tells partner very little. However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. -- 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 Dec 8 09:45:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Mj0o25656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:45:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7MioH25646 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:50 +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 16CTcj-000JbE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:37:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:19:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? References: <001201c17477$e92daee0$1ab77ad5@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 Brambledown writes >> David Burn writes: >>"I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of >>spades, making the rest." >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. We must never forget the claim statement. If declarer meant "I have the rest in top tricks" having mis-counted his tricks then presumably he would have said so. The inference from him saying "I know the position" is that he is not making a top tricks claim. -- 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 Dec 8 09:45:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB7Miqt25649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB7MihH25637 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:44:43 +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 16CTcZ-000Jaq-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:37:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:24:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@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 **************************************************************** Board14 A 8 6 E/- 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 substitutes a >double. > East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > > Question one: Can he decide: it is too 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 refers to Law 27 but the LHO has already bid. >Nevertheless will NS receive Av minus? The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and AI for E/W. L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and East's pass. -- 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 Dec 8 12:47:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB81kiL05679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:46:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail28.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail28.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB81kdH05663 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:46:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail28.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011208013933.PEW26354.femail28.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:39:33 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011207203416.0085f670@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 20:34:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-Reply-To: References: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> 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 12/7/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >West north east south > pass 1 D >1 NT 1 NT > double pass >**************************************************************** > >> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitutes a >>double. >> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an >insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. >Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and >AI for E/W. Agreed. > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and >East's pass. I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended the pass in a different situation. As a clearer example: N E S W 5D 5C Insufficient! 6C X South, holding two defensive tricks, intended to double 6C. He should not be forced to double 5C, even if it is ruled that he accepted the insufficient bid. In both cases, I would simply rule that the call after the illegal correction is a withdrawn call, and an infraction, so it is UI to the offenders and AI to the non-offenders (the original insufficient bidder). In my example, East can use the fact that South would double 6C in deciding whether to correct his insufficient bid to 6C or replace it with a 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 Sat Dec 8 14:01:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8314A18540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:01:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB830wH18527 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:00:58 +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 fB82rlE04406; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:53:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:49:03 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011207215352-R01010800-f2149a36-0904-0109@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 12/7/01 at 4:24 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This > he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and > East's pass. I have to agree with David G. East did not pass 1NT, he passed the double. To rule that a pass of double accepts a bid of 1NT seems ludicrous. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 14:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB83EQG20831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:14:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB83EKH20820 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:14:20 +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 fB837EB28530 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:07:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00c601c17f94$fdec6560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> <3.0.6.32.20011207203416.0085f670@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:57:26 -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 J. Grabiner" > At 04:24 PM 12/7/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >West north east south > > pass 1 D > >1 NT 1 NT > > double pass > >**************************************************************** > > > >> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitutes a > >>double. > >> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > > > The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an > >insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. > >Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and > >AI for E/W. > > Agreed. > > > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This > >he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and > >East's pass. > > I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended the pass in a > different situation. As a clearer example: > > N E S W > 5D 5C Insufficient! > 6C X > > South, holding two defensive tricks, intended to double 6C. He should not > be forced to double 5C, even if it is ruled that he accepted the > insufficient bid. > > In both cases, I would simply rule that the call after the illegal > correction is a withdrawn call, and an infraction, so it is UI to the > offenders and AI to the non-offenders (the original insufficient bidder). > In my example, East can use the fact that South would double 6C in deciding > whether to correct his insufficient bid to 6C or replace it with a pass. Without arguing the matter, I am surprised that L11A isn't included in the discussion. 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 Dec 8 15:08:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8481H01053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB847mH01034 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:48 +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 16CYfE-000I7V-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:00:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:35:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Marvin L. French writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> 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. Please be sensible. If you have no agreement about a bid then you do not have an agreement that it is non-forcing. -- 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 Dec 8 15:08:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8484H01054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB847mH01036 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:49 +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 16CYfD-000I7W-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:00:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:31:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 References: <005d01c178f8$5d7425c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005d01c178f8$5d7425c0$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 >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? No. I stand by our decision in Las Vegas. Nothing in this thread has made me change my mind yet. -- 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 Dec 8 15:08:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8487R01055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB847qH01044 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:53 +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 16CYfF-000I7Z-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:00:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:39:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- References: <002101c178b3$2c37d460$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fB847sH01046 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 09:52 29/11/2001 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: [s] >>The 1NT opening was 10-12; it requires a pre-alert >>which didn't come. [s] >>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. Seeing the score-sheet would be a great help - so long as *every* pair is playing a 10-12 1NT and *every* pair is playing a natural 2H response. Otherwise, how would the score-sheet help? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 15:08:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB847mF01035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB847gH01028 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:43 +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 16CYf9-000I7Z-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:00:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:16:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecard after BoT References: <000001c17339$4bcf6e20$1656a8c0@pournaras> <4.3.2.7.1.20011129174752.00b415c0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011129174752.00b415c0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 04:37 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. I do not disagree with the conclusion of Eric and others. But I wonder about one part of the logical chain. In my experience, when I run a ten, missing king + jack, and LHO considers then plays the king he is outstandingly more likely to be considering ducking with Kxx(xx) than false-carding with KJx(xx). -- 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 Dec 8 15:08:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB848At01056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB847tH01049 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:56 +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 16CYfI-000I7V-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:40:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Yet another A+/A- References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129142223.00aa9ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008601c178fb$2f428ea0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011130100541.00aba6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130100541.00aba6f0@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 >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. In judgement decisions TDs should *never* decide alone. -- 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 Dec 8 15:08:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB848oO01092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB848hH01088 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:08:44 +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 16CYg5-000I7Y-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:01:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:53:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <200112071505.KAA26535@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112071505.KAA26535@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 >> According to my information officially there is no such guideline. > >!!! > >That is certainly a surprise. We need _some_ guideline. Are there >any from other NCBO's? I think in England we feel that following the English meaning is sufficient guideline. Of course, there may be difficulties with that in North America ..... When I first got to Chicago O'Hare I found a severe language problem in attempting to get a cup of tea. When I finally succeeded I found it contained no milk. On the way home I was getting relatively fluent, looking for restrooms and so forth. I had also learnt to ask for "hot tea, plain, with milk". Having been to Amsterdam a couple of weeks earlier, where tea and milk do not seem to be considered a mix either, it seemed very similar, except that in Amsterdam the English is easier to understand. -- 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 Dec 8 16:19:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB85Hmt01132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 16:17:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB85HgH01128 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 16:17:43 +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 fB85AbB22485 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:10:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 20:58:01 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >> 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. > > Please be sensible. If you have no agreement about a bid then you do > not have an agreement that it is non-forcing. > Okay, I'll skip the shorthand and reply in full. The ACBL cc has a box for checking if a new suit response is not forcing. Definitely not forcing, that is. With no agreement, it cannot be said that a new suit response is forcing, so the box must be checked. Just because "not forcing" is checked does not mean it is a signoff that must be passed, nor does it require a weak hand, as the bidder may make strong bids later, no problem. While an opponent may infer a weak hand when "not forcing" is checked, that understandable inference is not a requirement for an opponent who has "no 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 Sat Dec 8 20:03:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB892kx07879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:02:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fB892dH07875 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:02:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 24766 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 08:55:34 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.0054 secs); 08 Dec 2001 08:55:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.201) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 08:55:33 -0000 Message-ID: <007301c18075$17dbe320$5f18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:47:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > In article > , Kooijman, A. writes > >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion > >about the following: > > > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes > >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you > >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > > > > >Pass is definitely a LA, Bidding a 6 or 7 card suit is also a > LA, particularly with a singleton or void club. I'm not inclined to > adjust in these circumstances, unless the action is clearly both bizarre > and successful. Surely these are not reasons to exclude an action. What law prohibits a player making a bizarre action. To me, bizarre is not close to being synonymous "demonstrably suggested". What do you mean my bizarre? For an action to be ruled against both the action taken and some alternative action - here you say pass - must be logical alternatives. Not one logical and one bizarre.Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 Mobile 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 20:11:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB89Ap508736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:10:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fB89AkH08725 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:10:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 28254 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 09:03:42 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 0.997923 secs); 08 Dec 2001 09:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.201) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 09:03:41 -0000 Message-ID: <007901c18076$3a718920$5f18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:56:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > Kooijman, A. writes > >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to get your opinion > >about the following: > > > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you pass, LO passes > >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you > >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > > Actually, one reason for doubt is holding too good a club holding. > Two aces plus C KQJ is not a very good double since you would prefer to > defend and partner might pull it. Sensibly though, partner will usually > hesitate then pass with this hand! > So what UI is there?: partner is not a completely standard balanced > hand with top cards and mediocre clubs. Really this tells partner very > little. ... ... > However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a > borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons > for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. > But you just gave a reason that suggests passing even if you did suggest a slow pass is more likely with that hand. Bidding is also not necessarily suggested if partner is offshape - you may hit a short suit. Certainly bidding a particular suit is not necessarily suggested.Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 Mobile 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 20:15:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB89Fkx09781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:15:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB89FdH09760 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:15:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB898RC26258 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:08:27 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:08:26 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/08/2001 10:08:26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This > > he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and > > East's pass. > I have to agree with David G. East did not pass 1NT, he passed the double. To > rule that a pass of double accepts a bid of 1NT seems ludicrous. And incorrect as far as I can see. We have a couple of possibilities here starting with the insufficient 1NT bid by North: 1: East passed, then the irregularity was noticed and North corrected his call to double before the director arrived at the table: The 1NT bid has been accepted by East and the double should be ruled upon using Law 25B 2: The irregularity was noticed, North corrected his call to double and East passed before the director arrived at the table: I believe the correct ruling should be by using Law 25B1 (together with Law 11A), the double and pass calls stand and the auction continues from there on with the next call by South. An alternative is to apply Law 27B3 which then implies also Law 35A: The double and all subsequent calls are cancelled, East is given the opportunity to accept the 1NT bid and to continue from there on, or North must change this 1NT bid to any legal call (excluding double). In both cases under this alternative East is free to make any legal call. My personal opinion is that this last alternative would be correct only if the director was at the table already when North changed his bid to a double, but in that case the director should have prevented East from making his pass. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 20:44:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB89i7H10181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:44:07 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fB89i1H10177 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-20-179.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.20.179] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Cds8-000Btv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:34:17 +0000 Message-ID: <004501c17fcc$0bb5bc00$b314e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:52:20 -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@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: [BLML] UI > I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but > I like to get your opinion about the following: > > Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), > you pass, LO passes and partner doubles after a > long hesitation. If any, what kind of UI do you > receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > > > ton > -- +=+ It will not be safe to jump in with a 'solution' without knowing more about the partnership in question. Have they played together enough to have an understanding about such a double? Or does it just show a hand too good to pass but without a clear bid? Opposite the double the player should follow the partnership understanding. The slow double casts doubt on the player having the hand to be expected according to his agreement. The most likely source of abuse would follow where the double is primarily t.o. and partner has a hand that should t.o. on that basis but does not do so, then finding partner with a hand that would like to defend. I doubt more should be said without knowing more about this partnership's understandings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 20:49:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB89nNM10194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:49:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from elsewhere.fragment.com (IDENT:0@elsewhere.fragment.com [198.179.16.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB89nHH10190 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:49:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from elsewhere.fragment.com (IDENT:523@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsewhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA10066 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 04:40:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200112080940.EAA10066@elsewhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On banning claims In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:49:01 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20011207114542.00ac4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 04:40:13 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <5.1.0.14.0.20011207114542.00ac4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheine r writes: >At 00:05 7/12/2001 -0500, Julian Lighton wrote: > >>That's just begging for imprecise claims. A thorough claim statement, >>even when it involves nothing but high tricks and ruffs, is not a >>short beast, especially early in the hand. >> >>"Win the lead, pull trump, ruff a club, give you the diamond ace, the >>rest are mine." > >AG : what I meant is that one could perhaps restrict acceptable claims to >those which are much simpler than that. That's pretty simple. > If the claim needs such a long >explanation, it is best avoided. I did not mean that long claims should be >made short, but that long claims should be discouraged. But what would happen under such a rule is that you'd get claims that look like: "trumps. (pointing to a club spot) ruff. diamond ace. twelve." I don't think this would be an improvement. >YMMV, Clearly. > but surely >any imprecise claim should be avoided, in any version of the jurisprudency, Yes, but eviscerating the entire concept of claims is a really bad way to do it. >and artificially shortened claims are among those. And a "maximum number of words" rule would produce more of those. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "It's my final stand / I make a fist out of each hand To shadows of the past / Take a breath, and I scream attack" -- Iron Maiden -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 21:26:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8AQEL10216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:26:14 +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.tiscali.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 fB8AQ8H10212 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:26:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-4-29.5800-3.access.uk.worldonline.com ([62.64.141.29] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16CeWt-000LvL-00; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:16:24 +0000 Message-ID: <006901c17fd1$edfda500$b314e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "=?Windows-1252?Q?'Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n'?=" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: law 82C Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:19:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "'Hans-Olof Hallén'" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: law 82C > > > > > We chose instead to allow each such > team its just score > > not 'its' but 'your' just score. > +=+ I was present in the discussion. However, the view was a corporate one of the committee and led by other voices. +=+ > > > , to be compared with the unreconstructed > scores of other teams in the tournament > > What compared? Not compared at all! > Independent of all other scores and > leading to (my) unjust results. > +=+ Come on, ton, don't be dim. Let me try to say it again. Each team, separately, is entitled to have its score ranked amongst the scores of other teams in the event. The score for each team must not be reduced in relation to what is just for that team, and if justice *at the table* requires that the team should have a given score above average it is to have that score, regardless of what score the opposing side gets and no other contestant in the event has the right to appeal the decision. Justice, it was decided, required that the adjusted scores need not balance. This was written into the laws. It was done with a full awareness that the committee was allowing the aggregated scores of the two opposing sides to exceed 100%. You have a view that the effect of this is undesirable; it is however the law as was then intended and as it is written. The individual scores of all the teams are then compared in order to rank them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 8 22:10:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8B9w710239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:09:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8B9rH10235 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:09:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.79.13] (helo=e8m4u6) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Cedv-0002oU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:23:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> From: "Ken Johnston" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:19:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0085_01C17FD1.E120CC40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C17FD1.E120CC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final = contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players = say they didn't notice :)) How does one rule? Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled = in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? Ken ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C17FD1.E120CC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Director is called to the table and = Declarer=20 denies the final contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The = other=20 two players say they didn't notice :))
 
How does one rule?
 
Subsequently, on inspection of = travellers, most=20 tables have been doubled in same contract. Does this have any bearing on = your=20 decision?
 
Ken
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C17FD1.E120CC40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 8 23:14:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8CDQf10272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 23:13:26 +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 fB8CDKH10268 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 23:13:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB8C6Dg21695 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:06:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:06 +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: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@127.0.0.1> Eric Landau wrote: > I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a > claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" > is! If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to tell me > that I must nevertheless base my ruling on it. If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. Of course the simple solution is to give a everyone the benefit of the doubt (at least once). Just ask the player "Did you realise the suit could be blocked?" and expect an honest answer. If my opponents place their monetary gains above their personal integrity I know who to look out for in future. If they do it for master points I know who to pity. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 01:11:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8EAsZ10323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:10:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8EAlH10319 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-139.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.139]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CDCC1D53BF for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:02:41 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Trick 9 claim - rationality? Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:00:35 -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 > David Stevenson writes: >> Brambledown writes >>> David Burn writes: >>> "I know the position. I will win the club return and cash the jack of >>> spades, making the rest." >> 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. > We must never forget the claim statement. If declarer meant "I have > the rest in top tricks" having mis-counted his tricks then presumably he > would have said so. The inference from him saying "I know the position" > is that he is not making a top tricks claim. OK, so we have been told subsequently that the claim was based on the (correct) knowledge of North's shape but the (incorrect) assumption that North held C KQ, so a full claim would have added after "I will win the club return and cash the jack of spades, making the rest." something like: "On my SJ, North will be forced to either discard his second club honour making my C10 good or a diamond making dummy's diamonds good from the top." This breaks down when North discards a club and CA fails to drop the second club honour, so where do you think this leaves us? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 01:11:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8EAXg10317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:10:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8EARH10313 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:10:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-139.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.139]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9046E1D530A for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:02:38 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:00:32 -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 > David Stevenson writes: >> 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 substitutes a >> double. East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an > insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. > Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and > AI for E/W. > > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This > he has done by passing. Surely this cannot be right. East passed over North's double not the insufficient bid. What would you have suggested if East had re-doubled? When an inadmissable double is cancelled under L35A "... that call and all subsequent calls are cancelled". ISTM the same principle should apply here. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 01:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8EYeo10347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:34:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8EYZH10343 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:34:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.4.182]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20011208142727.LJQH29646.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:27:27 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01c17ff4$73b87220$b604ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:27:22 -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 Ask them who made the final Pass in the auction :;-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Johnston" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players say they didn't notice :)) How does one rule? Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? Ken -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 02:27:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8FQSO17712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:26:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8FQMH17689 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:26:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.78]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GO16VA00.BGB for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:25:58 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-251.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.251]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0g 92/1482728); 09 Dec 2001 01:19:11 Message-ID: <005c01c17ffb$6c7350a0$fbd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:17:16 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. Another effect of the UI is that if you have a borderline decision about whether to bid a slam or not, then you should bid the slam in order to avoid taking advantage of the UI. 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 Dec 9 04:59:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8HxEk18192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:59:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8Hx7H18188 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:59:08 +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 fB8Hpx912452 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:51:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:50:08 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003a01c17ff4$73b87220$b604ff3e@jones1> Message-ID: <20011208125200-R01010800-c0cbb8b8-0904-0109@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 12/8/01 at 2:27 PM, anne@baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) wrote: > Ask them who made the final Pass in the auction :;-) Good idea. :-) Only problem is that in the games I play, a fourth pass is a fairly frequent occurrence, so I wouldn't consider this datum conclusive. 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 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 05:09:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I92c18263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8WH18211 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmq-0003yU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:04:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <20011207215352-R01010800-f2149a36-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20011207215352-R01010800-f2149a36-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 >On 12/7/01 at 4:24 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >> he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and >> East's pass. > >I have to agree with David G. East did not pass 1NT, he passed the double. To >rule that a pass of double accepts a bid of 1NT seems ludicrous. He did not pass the double. He passed. As for your assertion that the pass accepts the double is ludicrous go argue with the WBFLC. The EBU came to a different conclusion and the WBFLC told us we were wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:09:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I94018264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8XH18212 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmr-0003yV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:05:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> <003101c175c0$731aee80$6e053dd4@b0e7g1> <3.0.6.32.20011207203416.0085f670@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011207203416.0085f670@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner writes >At 04:24 PM 12/7/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>West north east south >> pass 1 D >>1 NT 1 NT >> double pass >>**************************************************************** >> >>> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitutes a >>>double. >>> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > >> The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an >>insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. >>Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and >>AI for E/W. > >Agreed. > >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and >>East's pass. > >I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended the pass in a >different situation. As a clearer example: > >N E S W >5D 5C Insufficient! > 6C X > >South, holding two defensive tricks, intended to double 6C. He should not >be forced to double 5C, even if it is ruled that he accepted the >insufficient bid. That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? >In both cases, I would simply rule that the call after the illegal >correction is a withdrawn call, and an infraction, so it is UI to the >offenders and AI to the non-offenders (the original insufficient bidder). >In my example, East can use the fact that South would double 6C in deciding >whether to correct his insufficient bid to 6C or replace it with a pass. I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:09:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I95D18265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8XH18213 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmr-0003yW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:30:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] minus 2 or minus 1 ?? References: <10.1601ea22.2930241a@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <10.1601ea22.2930241a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fB8I8aH18216 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony writes > 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. Sounds right. > Tony   > (first time contributor) Hi there! How goes? Do you have any cats? Please do us a favour and turn your HTML off. It does not work well in emails and messes it up for several other readers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:09:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9BJ18266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8cH18228 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmx-0003yT-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:44:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Vital Reisinger Appeal (highly unofficial version) References: <200112011836.NAA01095@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112011836.NAA01095@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: "Peter Gill" >quoting Barry Rigal: >> The Committee concluded that the Misinformation had caused >> the damage, > >There was a very similar case in a World Championship some years ago. >South had correctly described his hand to West, and North had correctly >described the NS agreement to East. The defenders subsequently went >wrong in a cashout situation. > >You might think that there would be no adjustment, reasoning no >infraction by North and that South's explanation, although an >infraction, ought to have helped the defense. However, in reality the >score was adjusted because the defense depended on North and South >having heard the _same_ explanation. > >For whatever it's worth, I think both of these are correct rulings. >We often say players are obliged to explain their agreements, not their >actual hands, and we refuse to adjust when someone psychs or misbids. >Well, that cuts both ways. If an explanation of one's hand instead of >the true agreement causes damage, even indirectly, then we must >adjust. > >As always, the relevant question is, "What would have happened after a >correct explanation?" Interesting. So to tell opponents what is in your hand, rather than your actual agreement, is safer without screens, because both opponents hear it. I always wondered what this dWS approach was. "Done without screens". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:09:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9EQ18267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8dH18230 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmz-0003yV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:51:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 References: <200112032126.QAA24960@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Canberra Bridge Club writes >My point when discussing this situation with Richards Hills was that >deceptive manouvres by declarer should not be aided by the use of >questions. Questions always add doubt to the minds of defenders >and as you are trying to deceive you cannot give yourself this >added edge. The question (and its timing) may imply that declarer >is considering ducking or winning the opening lead. The fact that >declarer did not play the correct card to deceive isn't relevent. >The question was foremost in the mind of the defender and aided in >the misdefence. While this is reasonable, and it would have been better for declarer to ask at a more suitable time, bridge players are fallible, and when something happens we must follow the Laws. When he actually asked, he had a demonstrable bridge reason, so you have no call to adjust, even if you do dislike his timing of the question. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:09:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9Gj18268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8dH18229 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmx-0003yU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:49:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) law 73F2 References: <005401c17b80$4fef55c0$044c003e@newron3d> In-Reply-To: <005401c17b80$4fef55c0$044c003e@newron3d> 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 fB8I8hH18239 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk =?windows-1255?B?4Ons7yD55un06Q==?= writes >             AKT6 >                                                                     >             T94 >                                                                     >             AJ74 >                                                                     >             JT >  What is your opinion ? Hi Ilan, nice to see you, got any cats. Please turn the HTML off: it does mess up emails!!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:14:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9Op18272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8jH18249 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Cln5-0003yU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:05:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?[BLML]_RE:_Re:_Re:_R=E9f._:__[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 Kooijman, A. writes >> Eric Landau wrote: > >> > But their current interpretation is impossible to rule in >> accordance >> > with. Perhaps they have simply lost their minds. > >I agree that you found an explanation for the fact that it seems impossible >to organize a decent discussion. There are others of us reading this list, Ton. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:16:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8IGd318668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:16:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8IGXH18647 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:16:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from pcow024o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:04:27 +0000 Received: from mikeamos (unverified) by pcow024o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with SMTP id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:04:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c18012$f1360320$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Anne Jones" , "blml" References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> <003a01c17ff4$73b87220$b604ff3e@jones1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:05:38 -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: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts > Ask them who made the final Pass in the auction :;-) I found this smart ass approach at the table when this happened to me - but it didn't work - they didn't agree (in my case they were 2-2) mike > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Johnston" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:19 AM > Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts > > > The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final > contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players > say they didn't notice :)) > > How does one rule? > > Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled > in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? > > Ken > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:26:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8IQFq20487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:26:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8IQ9H20465 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:26:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.4.143]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20011208181901.HBHU3849.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@anne>; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:19:01 +0000 Message-ID: <003401c18014$babaf380$8f04ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "mike amos" , "blml" References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> <003a01c17ff4$73b87220$b604ff3e@jones1> <000801c18012$f1360320$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:18:24 -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 Well you just have to decide who you believe, what is the most likely scenario, and make a ruling. And no Ken, I would not use the travellers to guide me. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike amos" To: "Anne Jones" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 2:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts > > > > Ask them who made the final Pass in the auction :;-) > > I found this smart ass approach at the table when this happened to me - but > it didn't work - they didn't agree > > (in my case they were 2-2) > > mike > > Anne > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ken Johnston" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:19 AM > > Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts > > > > > > The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final > > contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players > > say they didn't notice :)) > > > > How does one rule? > > > > Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled > > in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? > > > > Ken > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:29:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9NX18271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8fH18234 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Cln0-0003yW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:54:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >O. P. Me >South West North East >Pass Pass Pass 1C >Pass 1D 2NT > >At this point, East asked my >occasional partner about the >meaning of 2NT. Partner >correctly responded *No >agreement*. > >But is my occasional partner >required to be more specific? Yes. He should be practising Full Disclosure. >(1) In all my regular >partnerships, I play 2NT in >this sequence as a weak 5/5 in >the majors. Has this created >L75C partnership experience >with my occasional partner? Yes. >(2) If the general answer to >Question (1) is No, what if my >occasional partner had been at >the table as an opponent, when I >perpetrated a 2NT call in an >identical sequence with a >regular partner? Has this >created L75C partnership >experience with my occasional >partner? Moot. But Yes in effect. >(3) If the general answer to >Question (2) is Yes, what if my >occasional partner had forgotten >being at the table as my >opponent? Does L75C partnership >experience with my occasional >partner still exist? Yes. Tough he forgot the system you had not discussed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:44:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9LY18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8jH18251 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Cln5-0003yT-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:03:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Re:_R=E9f._:__[BLML]_Trick_12_claim?= References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011205164231.00b3e110@127.0.0.1> <3C0F67CB.4070809@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206165702.00b59320@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >I could also use some help in figuring out how to explain my rulings in >a polite and ZT-acceptable manner. When I allow a claim for one player >and disallow the same claim for another, telling the latter "We ruled >in his favor but against you because, in my humble opinion, his >declarer play is reasonable but yours sucks" just doesn't hack it. Come off it, Eric, that sounds fine as an intellectual criticism, but that is not what happens in the real world. Has BLML moved so far away from reality? As I remember saying, we are trying to run a game here. Admittedly Grattan disagreed, but I bet Kojak won't. Try thinking what happens, not what sounds good as a pseudo-intellectual exercise. When someone makes a claim, you as a TD make a judgement, based on everything you hear, and the hand, and so on. If you allow a claim for one player, and disallow a claim for another, then the two claims were *not* the same. You have judged based on various things like the exact wording, and so on. It is easy to tell people why you have ruled as you do, because you have made a judgement. No, you do not tell them it is because of the funny wording of the WBFLC, because it is not: they have produced a very reasonable guideline, but it is your judgement that produces a ruling. And do not forget, despite many people saying the opposite here, and ignoring examples to the contrary, that the way it goes gives advantages to different types and levels of players in different situations. But you do not tell that to your customers: you just make and then explain your judgement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:50:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9QZ18273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8hH18242 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Cln5-0003yS-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:58:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 73.F.2. References: <002201c17d65$301c1440$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <002201c17d65$301c1440$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> 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 fB8I8kH18253 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike amos writes > I disagree with Marvin's opinion >   > Here in England there is established case law that deals with > situations in which a defender claims that he was considering which > of  small cards to play and that hesitation in the play damages  > declarer >   > So if declarer leads towards dummy which has KJ and a defender with > Q82 pauses to consider whether to play the 8 or the 2, perhaps e.g. > to encourage or discourage another suit (Smith Peters), we would > not consider this a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation > in this position and if declarer misguessed the A  we would adjust > in his favour - all other things  being equal >   > So in England I would rule that the question and tempo variation of > declarer had damaged the defender and adjust in the defenders' > favour quoting this case law The case law basically says that considering whether to peter with two small cards is not considered adequate. In what way is this situation similar? > Now it's possible that an Appeals Committee might decide that in > this case East had just been dim and deserved no redress - I could > be persuaded down that line Fine. But no-one has suggested that, and I believe that to be wrong. > or they could decide that 73F2, didn't apply in this case, in which > case I think the Law in its current form is inadequate and I would > forward the case to Grattan for his consideration Why? Forward anything you like to Grattan, of course, but the WBFLC is not going to get involved in pure judgement decisions, and the judgement of the majority is that there was a demonstrable bridge reason. It is not a matter of the inadequacy or otherwise of the Law, merely a judgement decision. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 05:59:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8I9MK18270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:09:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8I8bH18225 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:08:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Clmw-0003yS-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:41:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011127151427.00a0be30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011127151427.00a0be30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling writes >At 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. :)} x x KQJ9xxxxx [9 cards!] xx You deal. What do you bid? Now, sometime in your life, if not in the past then in the future, you are going to try the effect of Pass. Everyone does. This is why I am always a little wary of the argument "he cannot have a hand to leap to 4D because he has passed". Another possibility: x KTxx KQJ9xxxx -- Some people *never* pre-empt with a 4-card major. Interestingly enough, we had this discussion in one of the ACBL ACs on which I served. It did not finally change our decision, but a minority of the AC convinced a majority they were wrong in "there cannot be such a hand after a pass". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 06:06:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8J6XJ24751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:06:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8J6FH24701 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:06:16 +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 fB8Ix6923815; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:59:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:51:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws , Ben Schelen X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011208135907-R01010800-9566d90a-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 12/8/01 at 12:04 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Ed Reppert writes > >On 12/7/01 at 4:24 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > > > >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This > >> he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and > >> East's pass. > > > >I have to agree with David G. East did not pass 1NT, he passed the double. To > >rule that a pass of double accepts a bid of 1NT seems ludicrous. > > He did not pass the double. He passed. I refer back to Ben's original message: > When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitudes pass in > double. > East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. East passed after North substituted double for 1NT. That looks a pass of "double" to me. It might be interesting to know who called the TD, and why. Ben? > As for your assertion that the pass accepts the double is ludicrous go > argue with the WBFLC. The EBU came to a different conclusion and the > WBFLC told us we were wrong. Please go back up a few lines and read what I wrote again. I did *not* assert that 'the pass accepts the double is ludicrous'. I asserted that to rule that a pass of *double* accepts 1NT is ludicrous. And it is. Where can I find the text of this WBFLC 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 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 06:06:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8J6ON24729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:06:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8J6FH24702 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:06:16 +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 fB8Ix2923755; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:59:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:54:44 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011208135902-R01010800-8c8b30c6-0904-0109@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 12/8/01 at 12:54 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Yes. Tough he forgot the system you had not discussed. You have *got* to be kidding. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 06:19:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8JIwt26834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:18:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8JIqH26816 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:18:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB8JArC13831; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:10:53 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:10:51 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/08/2001 20:10:53 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>West north east south >> pass 1 D >>1 NT 1 NT >> double pass >>**************************************************************** >> >>> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north substitutes a >>>double. >>> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > >> The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an >>insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. >>Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and >>AI for E/W. > >Agreed. But under what law? - The only relevant law I can think of is 35, and that one clearly states that when a particular call in an auction is cancelled then also all subsequent calls are cancelled. (For consistency I think that laws 21B2 and 25B1 are relevant as well). > >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and >>East's pass. Really? If East has accepted any of the calls from North with his pass it is the double, not the 1NT bid, and if the double is cancelled so must be the subsequent pass from East. If this logic is accepted then we shall not have any of the "problems" in the remaining part of this post. > >I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended the pass in a >different situation. As a clearer example: > >N E S W >5D 5C Insufficient! > 6C X > >South, holding two defensive tricks, intended to double 6C. He should not >be forced to double 5C, even if it is ruled that he accepted the >insufficient bid. > That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? Which law? >In both cases, I would simply rule that the call after the illegal >correction is a withdrawn call, and an infraction, so it is UI to the >offenders and AI to the non-offenders (the original insufficient bidder). >In my example, East can use the fact that South would double 6C in deciding >whether to correct his insufficient bid to 6C or replace it with a pass. > I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who > cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. Again which part of the laws please? I would agree with a TD that lets the last calls stand with no other reaction than PP because of failure to summoning the director. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 06:27:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8JRNp28238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:27:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx07.cluster0.hsacorp.net [209.225.8.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8JRGH28223 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:27:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.196.233.227] (HELO Bill) by dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with SMTP id 4080994 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01b301c1801e$1067d920$e3e9c418@Charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:25:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Johnston" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 5:19 AM Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players say they didn't notice :)) How does one rule? Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? Ken Many years ago (early 60's), I was in a similar situation. The auction (opponents silent) was P-1NT-(2,3)NT where I bid (and partner agreed) 3NT. Both opponents insisted I bid only 2! We figured this out after the opening lead and before partner had played from dymmy. The ruling I got was that my side was playing 3NT and the opponents were defending 2NT. The hand made exactly 2. Cheers.................../Bill Bickford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 06:42:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8JgFA00989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:42:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8Jg9H00973 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:42:10 +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 fB8JZ2m04559 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:35:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009c01c1801f$41c11940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f901c17892$b3823da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:31:25 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >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. > > While I was in Las Vegas I was told that this guideline was never > official. It was meant as a throwaway comment to cover a specific > situation and not designed for general publication. I also know which > blabbermo... errrr highly respected member of the Committee promulgated > it. According to my information officially there is no such guideline. > Rich Colker must have got to you. He hates the NOS guideline, and says it does not apply anymore. But he is not the LC, and those guidelines were established officially by the LC. They were published in the Daily Bulletin of the NABC during which the LC met and made that interpretation. It must have been about 1995. I used to have the Bulletin clipping pasted in the Laws but a thief at an NABC stole my jacket containing them. I can't refer anyone to the minutes of that meeting, as the recently published LC minutes don't go back that far. I suppose someone could have put that into the Bulletin without the blessing of the LC, but it seems unlikely. The announcement started out with something like "The ACBL Laws Committee has established the following guidelines," not as a vague instruction coming out of nowhere. There has certainly been nothing official to annul them. The NOS guideline has been ridiculed by Colker and others, but common sense would take it for what it was, and what it was described as being: a guideline, nothing more. TDs and ACs did not understand L12C2's language and wanted the LC to tell them what "the most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" meant, as they seemed somewhat vague, especially the former. Did a result have to be "likely"? No, something like a 1/3 chance would be good enough. Did a result have to be "probable"? No, but we want a stiffer criterion for the OS, so let's say something like a 1/6 chance. Don't take these numbers seriously, they are only guidelines. I remember you, David, said at one time that the guidelines seemed okay to you, and actually they are okay. I imagine they came from Edgar Kaplan, but that's a guess. Let me add this: When Rich told me that the NOS guideline doesn't apply anymore, I asked some of the top ACBL TDs how they are ruling, and they told me they go according to the 1/3 and 1/6 guidelines. Now, is that good enough, or does Ed Reppert have to dig further? (I'm not going to.) 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 Dec 9 09:04:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8M3vk02152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:03:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8M3oH02148 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:03:51 +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 VAA05128 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:56:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:52:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> <003a01c17ff4$73b87220$b604ff3e@jones1> <000801c18012$f1360320$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <000801c18012$f1360320$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000801c18012$f1360320$9ee41e3e@mikeamos>, mike amos writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Jones" >To: "blml" >Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 2:27 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts > > >> Ask them who made the final Pass in the auction :;-) > >I found this smart ass approach at the table when this happened to me - but >it didn't work - they didn't agree > >(in my case they were 2-2) > >mike I check the player's personal score card to see if they have entered a contract. If they have I believe the double and so rule. If there is no entry there then I usually rule that the player who made the bid knows which bid he made, and would need strong evidence to the contrary to rule that he didn't. Asking who passed last is pointless, if they don't even know whether a hand had already doubled. John >> Anne >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ken Johnston" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:19 AM >> Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts >> >> >> The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final >> contract (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players >> say they didn't notice :)) >> >> How does one rule? >> >> Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled >> in same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? >> >> Ken >> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- 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 Dec 9 09:08:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8M88w02164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:08:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8M82H02160 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:08:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.7.15]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20011208220054.TNKD29646.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c18033$cff657c0$0f07ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <000001c17fd2$45fdb880$0d4f7ad5@e8m4u6> <01b301c1801e$1067d920$e3e9c418@Charter.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:00:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed facts > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Johnston" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 5:19 AM > Subject: [BLML] Disputed facts > > > The Director is called to the table and Declarer denies the final contract > (4H-2) was doubled. Defender says it was. The other two players say they > didn't notice :)) > > How does one rule? > > Subsequently, on inspection of travellers, most tables have been doubled in > same contract. Does this have any bearing on your decision? > > Ken > > Many years ago (early 60's), I was in a similar situation. The auction > (opponents silent) was P-1NT-(2,3)NT where I bid (and partner agreed) 3NT. > Both opponents insisted I bid only 2! We figured this out after the opening > lead and before partner had played from dymmy. > > The ruling I got was that my side was playing 3NT and the opponents were > defending 2NT. The hand made exactly 2. > > > Cheers.................../Bill Bickford > Interesting Bill. At least you had one of opps cards played and dummy exposed only. In your case there was no doubt that the auction had ended. How would you rule at the table if you decided that the 4H contract had been doubled but that there had been no passes thereafter? The auction is not finished, and there are 52 exposed cards. Do you go back to the double and demand that the next three players register a call.The contract must remain at 4H* because the cards exposed during the auction silences all players. Declarer now gets to play the contract treating all opps exposed cards as penalty cards Law 24, and should now play them to his best advantage, possibly making his contract. Was this teams? Explain how you are going to rule and ask opp once again if he is absolutely sure that he doubled :-) Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 09:36:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8MZuD02185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 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 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 fB8MZoH02181 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:35:50 +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 fB8MSeH96923 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 17:28:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:30:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011207095813.00a22ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@127.0.0.1> <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:14 AM 12/7/01, Grant wrote: >At 04:53 PM 12/6/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>whereas if my reading is correct, it would be a lot harder to rewrite >>the footnote to make it any clearer. Perhaps something like, "For >>the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered >>"normal" even if they would be careless or inferior for the class of >>player involved, but not irrational." That, it > > Isn't it monumentally odd to include the phrase >"for the class of player involved" if the class of player >involved is totally irrelevant to claim rulings? Not at all, given history. The 1975 Laws, which were a lot more specific, used (in the context of declarer dealing with an outstanding trump) the words "any normal play (including the careless or inferior but not the irrational)". But despite the strictures of the laws, one saw rulings where far from adequately described claims were allowed to the better players (or friends of the adjudicators) on grounds of nothing more than "we're sure that if he had played the hand out he'd have made it." So when the 1987 Laws added the footnote, it was not at all amiss to read it as mentioning class of player specifically to reinforce the point that just because a particular player was so good that one could be confident that he would not have taken a line that, for him, would be distinctly careless or inferior did not mean that that line would be disregarded; only irrational lines were to be disregarded, regardless of the class of the player who claimed. That was clearly what the 1975 wording intended, and it made much more sense at the time to read the rewording as a clarification, for which there was apparent need, rather than a reversal, for which there was, AFAIK, no favorable sentiment at all. Fourteen years later the WBFLC has stated that that was not their intention. For me, this means now having to concern myself with how the players in the event I'm directing stack up in bridge ability relative to one another. For the most part I won't know, and, when I do, I certainly don't want to have to go on record with what are, after all, only my personal opinions, and can only alienate some players and make my job harder. So I will continue to try to convince the WBF that their reinterpretation is ill-advised, makes the game worse not better overall, and should be withdrawn. >Isn't >that waving a rather conspicuous red cape in front of a >bull--encouraging TDs like me to think that we are supposed >to judge class of player in making our rulings? Surely >if this is what the lawmakers meant they should never >have used those words at all, but simply said that it >includes careless and inferior but not irrational plays. If the lawmakers mean to tell us specifically that we must ignore something, they must mention it just as necessarily as if they mean to tell us specifically that we must consider it. >>seems to me, is a lot closer to the actual wording of the footnote >>than any rewrite which would make Herman's and Ton's interpretation >>clearly correct. > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be > considered "normal" even if they would be careless or inferior, but > not irrational, for the class of player involved." Indeed. This reinforces my point. To clarify Grant's interpretation of the footnote it doesn't suffice just to change a few words to make the sentence directive rather than definitional, but requires shifting whole phrases around so as to change their referents. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 09:56:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8MuJD02202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:56:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB8Mu9H02198 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:56:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts37.eiu.edu [139.67.16.37]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id fB8MmNG25505; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 16:48:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011208165254.007ced00@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:52:54 -0600 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling Please In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011127151427.00a0be30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011127151427.00a0be30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:41 PM 12/8/2001 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Grant Sterling writes >>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. >> 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. :)} > > x > x > KQJ9xxxxx [9 cards!] > xx > > You deal. What do you bid? > > Now, sometime in your life, if not in the past then in the future, you >are going to try the effect of Pass. Everyone does. > > This is why I am always a little wary of the argument "he cannot have >a hand to leap to 4D because he has passed". I never said he _couldn't_ have such a hand. I said that at my level of play the probability of 'partner forgot' on an auction like this is so much higher than 'partner has a bizarre hand', that it is wrong to force me to bid under the assumption that the latter is the case. I would say that I see forgotten bids like this on a fairly regular basis from somebody or other [nearly once a session], and I have never seen anyone bidding it correctly due to a weird hand. On my view, this means it isn't even an LA to bid assuming the bid was correct _among my peers_. As I said, the fact that there is some possible hand that makes a bid correct does not make that bid an LA, right? > Another possibility: > > x > KTxx > KQJ9xxxx > -- > > Some people *never* pre-empt with a 4-card major. > > Interestingly enough, we had this discussion in one of the ACBL ACs on >which I served. It did not finally change our decision, but a minority >of the AC convinced a majority they were wrong in "there cannot be such >a hand after a pass". > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ 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 Sun Dec 9 10:24:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8NNjt03516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:23:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8NNdH03495 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:23:40 +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 SAA17361 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:16:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:16:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112082316.SAA10829@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Vital Reisinger Appeal (highly unofficial version) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Interesting. So to tell opponents what is in your hand, rather than > your actual agreement, is safer without screens, because both opponents > hear it. Yes, that is interesting, isn't it? Of course MI is still an infraction, but if both opponents hear the same (wrong) explanation, one possible source of damage has been eliminated. Of course the practical effect is rare because without screens, one is usually explaining partner's calls, not one's own. A better example might be online bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 10:36:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8NZuk05557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:35:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB8NZoH05534 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:35:51 +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 SAA17476 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11175 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:28:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:28:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112082328.SAA11175@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Card exposed during the auction is UI to that side.] From: David Stevenson > No. I stand by our decision in Las Vegas. Nothing in this thread has > made me change my mind yet. Well, Ton is with you. I'm curious whether you would have said the same prior to 1997. It still seems to me that if a card face up on the table is supposed to be UI, the lawmakers owe us a clear and unambiguous statement to that effect. Else who could imagine it? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 10:40:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB8Ne6t06545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 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 fB8Ne1H06527 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 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 SAA17517 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11260 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:32:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:32:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112082332.SAA11260@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a > borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons > for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. I was with you up to here, but I don't follow this at all. If partner is weaker than normal, you don't want to bid. (Better to pass and hope to manage three tricks on defense than bid into certain disaster.) If partner has more defense than normal, you don't want to bid. And if partner was considering bidding his suit, you don't want to bid yours. (He is probably short.) Did you mean L73C suggests you must bid rather than pass on a borderline hand? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 11:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB900W709236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:00:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB900PH09232 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:00:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-88.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.88]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A97671D5152 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 23:53:15 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 23:51:10 -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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes >> David J. Grabiner writes: >> N E S W >> 5D 5C Insufficient! >> 6C X >> >>South, holding two defensive tricks, intended to double 6C. He should not >>be forced to double 5C, even if it is ruled that he accepted the >>insufficient bid. > That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? >> In both cases, I would simply rule that the call after the illegal >> correction is a withdrawn call, and an infraction, so it is UI to the >> offenders and AI to the non-offenders (the original insufficient bidder). >> In my example, East can use the fact that South would double 6C >> in deciding whether to correct his insufficient bid to 6C or replace >> it with a pass. > I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who > cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. Mm ... interesting. Try the following scenario in DWSland: North (dealer): Stop bid ... 4S East: (fumble, fumble): 5C South: Double East: Director, please. (TD arrives) East: Initially I did not see North's opening bid. I had intended to open 1C and I took hold of the 1C card from my bidding box. Then I spotted the 4S bid and quickly changed my bid to 5C. TD: Did you remove the 1C bid from the bidding box? East: Well, yes, it must have been out of the box for a nano-second or two. TD: In that case the bid was made. 5C is corrected to 1C and South's double accepts this insufficient bid. South: But I wouldn't have accepted 1C or doubled it. TD: That will teach you to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? East's fumble was an infraction and I'm not going to worry about players who cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. OK, so this is a bit of a stretch to make a point. I'm as concerned as anybody that the TD was not called earlier in the original example, but I don't think that David's approach is reasonable or very helpful. Furthermore, I believe that it's wrong in law. All calls after an inadmissable double are cancelled (L35A) and ISTM that the same treatment should be applied to a double cancelled under L27B3. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 11:42:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB90gLe12690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB90gDH12679 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:13 +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 16Crvo-000LC3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 00:35:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:20:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson writes: > >>> 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 substitutes a >>> double. East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > >> The WBFLC decided that when a player attempts to correct an >> insufficient bid without benefit of TD the correction is cancelled. >> Therefore the double is cancelled, though per L16C it is UI for N/S and >> AI for E/W. >> >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >> he has done by passing. > >Surely this cannot be right. East passed over North's double not the >insufficient bid. What would you have suggested if East had re-doubled? >When an inadmissable double is cancelled under L35A "... that call and all >subsequent calls are cancelled". ISTM the same principle should apply >here. East has passed, if you want to be legalistic. You pass, you do not really pass over something. The double has been cancelled because the WBFLC says that is the way we deal with this situation. Cannot be right: why not? Why should we have any sympathy for players that cannot be bothered to call the TD after an irregularity. As for your redouble example, suppose East had doubled: you would have said the double was "over" the double. Same sort of mess. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 11:42:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB90gKU12688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB90gBH12677 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:12 +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 16Crvn-000LC1-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 00:35:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:16:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 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 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >> > L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid [1NT]. This >> > he has done by passing. So the auction continues from North's 1NT and >> > East's pass. > >> I have to agree with David G. East did not pass 1NT, he passed the >double. To >> rule that a pass of double accepts a bid of 1NT seems ludicrous. > >And incorrect as far as I can see. > >We have a couple of possibilities here starting with the >insufficient 1NT bid by North: > >1: East passed, then the irregularity was noticed and North >corrected his call to double before the director arrived at >the table: > >The 1NT bid has been accepted by East and the double should >be ruled upon using Law 25B > >2: The irregularity was noticed, North corrected his call to >double and East passed before the director arrived at >the table: > >I believe the correct ruling should be by using Law 25B1 >(together with Law 11A), the double and pass calls stand >and the auction continues from there on with the next call >by South. > >An alternative is to apply Law 27B3 which then implies also >Law 35A: The double and all subsequent calls are cancelled, >East is given the opportunity to accept the 1NT bid and to >continue from there on, or North must change this 1NT bid >to any legal call (excluding double). In both cases under >this alternative East is free to make any legal call. > >My personal opinion is that this last alternative would be >correct only if the director was at the table already when >North changed his bid to a double, but in that case the >director should have prevented East from making his pass. The trouble with all this, Sven, is that the WBFLC has said this is not the way it is done. They have pronounced on the matter, so I suggest we just follow their pronouncement. They say the double is cancelled. Our ruling is based on an insufficient bid of 1NT. Your conclusions may be reasonable. The EBU had reached different conclusions. But with an interpretation from the official body our hands are tied. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 11:42:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB90gQW12693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:26 +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-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 fB90gIH12687 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:42:19 +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 16Crvo-0004oG-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 00:35:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:23:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin L. French writes >> >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> >> 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. >> Please be sensible. If you have no agreement about a bid then you do >> not have an agreement that it is non-forcing. >Okay, I'll skip the shorthand and reply in full. > >The ACBL cc has a box for checking if a new suit response is not forcing. >Definitely not forcing, that is. With no agreement, it cannot be said that a >new suit response is forcing, so the box must be checked. Just because "not >forcing" is checked does not mean it is a signoff that must be passed, nor >does it require a weak hand, as the bidder may make strong bids later, no >problem. While an opponent may infer a weak hand when "not forcing" is >checked, that understandable inference is not a requirement for an opponent >who has "no agreement." This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is forcing or not [inter alia]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 12:21:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB91L4a12728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB91KxH12724 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:20:59 +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 fB91Dqm22722 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 17:13:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d101c1804e$63c2cdc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@127.0.0.1> <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 17:11:06 -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 Thank goodness there's someone as articulate and intelligent as Eric to argue these points. No need for me to try anymore, he says it better. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > At 11:14 AM 12/7/01, Grant wrote: > > >At 04:53 PM 12/6/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >>whereas if my reading is correct, it would be a lot harder to rewrite > >>the footnote to make it any clearer. Perhaps something like, "For > >>the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered > >>"normal" even if they would be careless or inferior for the class of > >>player involved, but not irrational." That, it > > > > Isn't it monumentally odd to include the phrase > >"for the class of player involved" if the class of player > >involved is totally irrelevant to claim rulings? > > Not at all, given history. The 1975 Laws, which were a lot more > specific, used (in the context of declarer dealing with an outstanding > trump) the words "any normal play (including the careless or inferior > but not the irrational)". But despite the strictures of the laws, one > saw rulings where far from adequately described claims were allowed to > the better players (or friends of the adjudicators) on grounds of > nothing more than "we're sure that if he had played the hand out he'd > have made it." So when the 1987 Laws added the footnote, it was not at > all amiss to read it as mentioning class of player specifically to > reinforce the point that just because a particular player was so good > that one could be confident that he would not have taken a line that, > for him, would be distinctly careless or inferior did not mean that > that line would be disregarded; only irrational lines were to be > disregarded, regardless of the class of the player who claimed. That > was clearly what the 1975 wording intended, and it made much more sense > at the time to read the rewording as a clarification, for which there > was apparent need, rather than a reversal, for which there was, AFAIK, > no favorable sentiment at all. > > Fourteen years later the WBFLC has stated that that was not their > intention. For me, this means now having to concern myself with how > the players in the event I'm directing stack up in bridge ability > relative to one another. For the most part I won't know, and, when I > do, I certainly don't want to have to go on record with what are, after > all, only my personal opinions, and can only alienate some players and > make my job harder. So I will continue to try to convince the WBF that > their reinterpretation is ill-advised, makes the game worse not better > overall, and should be withdrawn. > > >Isn't > >that waving a rather conspicuous red cape in front of a > >bull--encouraging TDs like me to think that we are supposed > >to judge class of player in making our rulings? Surely > >if this is what the lawmakers meant they should never > >have used those words at all, but simply said that it > >includes careless and inferior but not irrational plays. > > If the lawmakers mean to tell us specifically that we must ignore > something, they must mention it just as necessarily as if they mean to > tell us specifically that we must consider it. > > >>seems to me, is a lot closer to the actual wording of the footnote > >>than any rewrite which would make Herman's and Ton's interpretation > >>clearly correct. > > > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be > > considered "normal" even if they would be careless or inferior, but > > not irrational, for the class of player involved." > > Indeed. This reinforces my point. To clarify Grant's interpretation > of the footnote it doesn't suffice just to change a few words to make > the sentence directive rather than definitional, but requires shifting > whole phrases around so as to change their referents. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 13:02:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB921eJ12757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB921ZH12753 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:01:35 +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 fB91sQm00799; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 17:54:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 17:50:45 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin L. French writes > >> >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >> >> 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. > > >> Please be sensible. If you have no agreement about a bid then you do > >> not have an agreement that it is non-forcing. > > >Okay, I'll skip the shorthand and reply in full. > > > >The ACBL cc has a box for checking if a new suit response is not forcing. > >Definitely not forcing, that is. With no agreement, it cannot be said that a > >new suit response is forcing, so the box must be checked. Just because "not > >forcing" is checked does not mean it is a signoff that must be passed, nor > >does it require a weak hand, as the bidder may make strong bids later, no > >problem. While an opponent may infer a weak hand when "not forcing" is > >checked, that understandable inference is not a requirement for an opponent > >who has "no agreement." > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is > forcing or not [inter alia]. > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you check the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." All right, there is a check box for Stayman. If you don't check it, you can't use it. Saying "undecided" doesn't pass muster. 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 Dec 9 13:36:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB92aDK12775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:36:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB92a7H12771 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:36:08 +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 fB92Sw906915; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:28:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:24:12 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-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 12/8/01 at 9:20 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Cannot be right: why not? Why should we have any sympathy for players > that cannot be bothered to call the TD after an irregularity. It's not a question of sympathy. If you cancel the double, yet leave the subsequent pass in place, then you have put a "hole" in the bidding. There ain't no place in the laws that I can see that supports doing that. There was an irregularity (insufficient bid). Attention was drawn to it, if by nothing else, then by the attempt to change it. Once attention is drawn to it, (1) the Director must be called [L9B1(a)] and (2) no player may take any action until the Director has explained the governing laws [L9B2]. Therefor, the Director should, IMO, once he gets to the table, first cancel *any* action taken after attention was drawn. In this case, that would include *both* the double and the pass. I do not see how the WBFLC position can support calling East's pass in this case an acceptance of the insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. You state that it does. I'm not convinced. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 13:45:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB92jE713002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:45:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB92j7H12991 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:45:08 +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 fB92bw912514; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:37:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:33:35 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20011208213800-R01010800-24864adf-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 12/8/01 at 5:50 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you check > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle > ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." > > All right, there is a check box for Stayman. If you don't check it, you > can't use it. Saying "undecided" doesn't pass muster. This is silly. There are three possibilities, not two. They are "forcing", "non-forcing", and "no agreement". That the ACBL CC does not cater to the third possibility simply means that the CC is flawed (surprise! surprise!), not that "no agreement" is not possible. Unless you can show me an ACBL regulation somewhere that says that anyplace there's a checkbox on the CC, a pair who checks it is deemed to have the agreement specified, and a pair which does not has some other, unspecified agreeement. I'll be very surprised if you can. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 19:03:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB982Gb07407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 19:02:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fB982AH07403 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 19:02:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19459 invoked by uid 0); 9 Dec 2001 07:54:56 -0000 Received: from pd954c158.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.193.88) by mail.gmx.net (mp014-rz3) with SMTP; 9 Dec 2001 07:54:56 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 08:50:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Message-ID: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 8 Dec 2001, at 21:16, David Stevenson wrote: > But with an interpretation from the official body > our hands are tied. I do not doubt one second that David is giving us the right informations about this, but I will show you what happens to me when I hear that official comments do exist. I go to the official homepage of the WBF-Law's there I do not find anything but the text of Laws. So I start to think where can be this official interpretations, oh maybe in the minutes of the meetings. Of course I do not find them on the WBF homepage, so lets go to the homepage of the one that is making the largest effords to help people about Law's matters on the web, to David Stevenson's homepage (a deeply meant *thank you* David). There I print out the minutes and have to search about an eventual interpretation between a lot of not law related stuff. Now I would love to hear from you, that I am goodwilled but I could easily find the official interpretations at ..... and that the WBF-LC is already making some tide document about every official interpretation just missing to put them on their official homepage. It is so easy to put documents on the web, the WBF-LC should make a larger use of this tool. ciao stefan :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 9 20:39:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB99dBC10483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:39:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB99d5H10479 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:39:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fB99VO423346; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:31:24 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:31:22 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/09/2001 10:31:23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes . . . . (snip - I thnk we remember the essence) > The trouble with all this, Sven, is that the WBFLC has said this is > not the way it is done. They have pronounced on the matter, so I > suggest we just follow their pronouncement. They say the double is > cancelled. Our ruling is based on an insufficient bid of 1NT. > Your conclusions may be reasonable. The EBU had reached different > conclusions. But with an interpretation from the official body our > hands are tied. Well, once in a while there seems to be an official pronouncement unknown to me, and as long as I have no access to it (can you give me an URL?) I for one do not feel tied. Furthermore as I consider this pronouncement (if true) to be flawed I am not going to adhere until I have better justification. I would like to hear some authority (preferably WBFLC) clarify how the following auction (identical to the one under dispute except for one minor detail) shall be handled under this pronouncement (assuming that it has been correctly understood): West North East South pass 1D 1NT 1NT "insufficient!" X XX Consistent with what has been claimed so far the double by North is cancelled but the redouble by East is not, so we end up with the illegal auction 1NT in North being redoubled by East. This is of course nonsense, or is it the official policy by WBFLC that East-West shall now be faced with Law 36? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 9 21:42:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9AeXf14499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx01.nexgo.de (mx01.nexgo.de [151.189.8.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB9AeRH14495 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:40:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-144-015.arcor-ip.net [212.144.144.15]) by mx01.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id F202C3BD2C for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:33:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:18:11 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits 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: > From: "David Stevenson" [forcing or not-forcing] > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing > > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does > > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an > > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is > > forcing or not [inter alia]. > > > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you check > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle > ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." You opponents are entitled to the information that your 'non-forcing' bid might have been made with 20 points opposite partner's opening bid. Checking the non-forcing box certainly does not provide that information, it is misleading. 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 Dec 10 00:01:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9D0kw17780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:46 +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 fB9D0eH17776 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB9CrUQ19411 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:53:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:53 +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: <001d01c17f47$7f433100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > In order to execute a squeeze, one must have a firm knowledge of the > squeezee's exact distribution at the time of the squeeze. A player > could claim on a squeeze, knowing there is a squeeze but unsure that > s/he will know whether a suit has been unguarded. Just claim the > squeeze and lay the cards down. The TD will see the squeeze and grant > it. This gives the squeezee no chance to discard deceptively in hopes > that the claimer has been, or will be, inattentive. No, the TD will ask to hear the squeezee's objection to the claim. The squeezee will say "If I discard ..., and partner keeps.. the position will be ambiguous". The TD will (if the objection is correct) rule in the squeezee's favour. If there is no ambiguity in the squeeze position then of course the TD should uphold the claim. Mind you if I claim on a squeeze against a player I know doesn't understand them then I wouldn't be surprised if the TD gave me a warning for discourteous behaviour. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 02:33:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9FWfq17833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 02:32:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB9FWYH17829 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 02:32:35 +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 PAA07068 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:25:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:24:24 +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> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn writes > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> From: "David Stevenson" >[forcing or not-forcing] >> > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing >> > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does >> > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an >> > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is >> > forcing or not [inter alia]. >> > >> And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it >> cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you >check >> the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle >> ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." > >You opponents are entitled to the information >that your 'non-forcing' bid might have been made >with 20 points opposite partner's opening bid. >Checking the non-forcing box certainly does not >provide that information, it is misleading. > If you have no agreement they're entitled to an explanation "We have no agreement". Nothing more, nothing less. > Thomas, sometimes I play "We have no agreement" as a system. When partner opens 1NT , we genuinely have no agreement. There is *No* requirement in Law for me to have *any* agreements. Of course during the session I do learn, as does my partner, some of the methods he's playing, and can now say "We originally had no agreement, but earlier in the session he opened 1NT on 3424 14 count". Since there's a requirement that both players play the same system in the UK, we're both now constrained by that knowledge to open 1NT in the range 12-16, and by the end of the session we usually know our 1NT range. It can lead to playing Precision 2C, Natural strong and forcing 2D, weak 2H, and 2S as 5-5 in the minors, weak. Last time I did it I scored about 53% and it's a genuine challenge for both sides to try and work out what's going on. cheers John > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 03:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9G3CO17867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:03:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB9G35H17863 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB9Ftvf13239 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:55:57 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:55 +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: > "On my SJ, North will be forced to either discard his second club honour > making my C10 good or a diamond making dummy's diamonds good from the > top." > > This breaks down when North discards a club and CA fails to drop the > second club honour, so where do you think this leaves us? It leaves us with: None None ??? None None None None 7 AK10 102 None 9 None ? K In addition we accept "as fact" that a) Declarer is aware of the shape of both hands b) Declarer has counted only 8 points for North's opening bid c) Declarer knows that North played DJ on the first round of the suit IMO it would be completely ridiculous to play for the drop in the light of the above information. Three tricks to declarer. Nb, if our investigation led to different "facts" eg we decided that a) was untrue and that declarer might consider: None None ?? K None None None 7 AK10 102 None 9 None ?? None as a feasible position we would rule one trick 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 04:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9Hqjg18647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 04:52:45 +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 fB9HqdH18614 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 04:52:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB9HjU221232 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 17:45:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 17:45 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] UI 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 much that I agree with but concluded with: > However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a > borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons > for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. Which seemed somewhat inconsistent with: > Actually, one reason for doubt is holding too good a club holding. > Two aces plus C KQJ is not a very good double since you would prefer to > defend and partner might pull it. Sensibly though, partner will usually > hesitate then pass with this hand! Since a slightly stronger hand than the above (ie some trick taking potential plus good clubs and controls) will often lead to a slow double. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 05:24:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9INg824208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:23:42 +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 fB9INXH24189 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:23:33 +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 fB9IGOm08825 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:16:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <015001c180db$81e13de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:01:13 -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: "Thomas Dehn" > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "David Stevenson" > [forcing or not-forcing] > > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing > > > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does > > > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an > > > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is > > > forcing or not [inter alia]. > > > > > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it > > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you > check > > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle > > ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." > > You opponents are entitled to the information > that your 'non-forcing' bid might have been made > with 20 points opposite partner's opening bid. > Checking the non-forcing box certainly does not > provide that information, it is misleading. > So Alert the response and explain that it could be strong. WTP? 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 Dec 10 05:24:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9INhQ24211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:23:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB9INWH24183 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:23:33 +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 fB9IGOm08822 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:16:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <014f01c180db$8194f2a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 09:57:21 -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: "stefan filonardi" > Now I would love to hear from you, that I am goodwilled but I > could easily find the official interpretations at ..... and that > the WBF-LC is already making some tide document about every > official interpretation just missing to put them on their > official homepage. > > It is so easy to put documents on the web, the WBF-LC should > make a larger use of this tool. > And we should all resolve not to cite an interpretation of the Laws, or a regulation, without quoting it exactly and giving a location where it can be found. I refuse to accept any undocumented dicta, as there is a lot of incorrect word-of-mouth going around. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 08:15:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9LEOP26560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:14:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB9LEIH26556 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:14:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:07:05 -0800 Received: from 172.143.120.89 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 21:07:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.120.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:07:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2001 21:07:05.0188 (UTC) FILETIME=[746F5240:01C180F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "David Stevenson" >[forcing or not-forcing] > > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing > > > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does > > > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an > > > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it >is > > > forcing or not [inter alia]. > > > > > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, >it > > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you >check > > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle > > ground. Yes there is plenty. "I don't know," or, "We have no agreement." Also, some people play some bids semi-forcing, like 1NT after a 3rd/4th seat major opening in 2/1. > > When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." Bad example. Ask me if Schroedinger's cat is dead. -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 Mon Dec 10 09:08:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9M7vn26599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:07:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB9M7pH26595 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:07:51 +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 WAA07753 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:00:55 GMT Message-ID: <25OmguA+69E8Ew93@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:59:26 +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> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> <015001c180db$81e13de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <015001c180db$81e13de0$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 <015001c180db$81e13de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Thomas Dehn" >> >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> > From: "David Stevenson" >> [forcing or not-forcing] >> > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing >> > > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does >> > > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an >> > > agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it >is >> > > forcing or not [inter alia]. >> > > >> > And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, >it >> > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you >> check >> > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle >> > ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." >> >> You opponents are entitled to the information >> that your 'non-forcing' bid might have been made >> with 20 points opposite partner's opening bid. >> Checking the non-forcing box certainly does not >> provide that information, it is misleading. >> >So Alert the response and explain that it could be strong. WTP? > Nope, alert the response and say "No agreement" 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 Mon Dec 10 09:41:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9MfKx26627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:41:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB9MfEH26623 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:41:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-146-180.arcor-ip.net [212.144.146.180]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 384C037BD5 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:34:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002201c18102$4eb22520$b49290d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000301c1809d$9d5e2c60$0f9090d4@rabbit> <015001c180db$81e13de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:38:39 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Thomas Dehn" > > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > From: "David Stevenson" > > [forcing or not-forcing] > > > > This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing > > > > with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does > > > > **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an > > > > agreement. No agreement means > > > > you have no agreement about whether it is > > > > forcing or not [inter alia]. > > > > > > > And that makes no sense to me. If > > > you have no agreement on the matter, it > > > cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. > > > If you can't say that, you check > > > the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, > > > there is no middle > > > ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." > > > > You opponents are entitled to the information > > that your 'non-forcing' bid might have been made > > with 20 points opposite partner's opening bid. > > Checking the non-forcing box certainly does not > > provide that information, it is misleading. > > > So Alert the response and explain that it could be strong. WTP? So, when we have no agreement, you recommend that we first provide false information on the CC, and then provide a different false explanation when asked? 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 Dec 10 10:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fB9NOR726655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:24:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fB9NOLH26651 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:24:22 +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 fB9NGx929547; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:16:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:08:17 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <015001c180db$81e13de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20011209181703-R01010800-dbb329ca-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 12/9/01 at 10:01 AM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > So Alert the response and explain that it could be strong. WTP? You are required to explain your agreements. You are not allowed to explain the lack of an agreement by "could be strong". I suppose you could argue that if a pair have no agreement in a common situation, they should be required to alert it, but the alert regs don't quite say that. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 11:44:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA0i0126706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:44:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA0hnH26694 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:43:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16DEQq-00069K-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:36:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:48:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? References: <20011208135902-R01010800-8c8b30c6-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20011208135902-R01010800-8c8b30c6-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 >On 12/8/01 at 12:54 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Yes. Tough he forgot the system you had not discussed. > >You have *got* to be kidding. Think it through. When you play in a group etc there are certain inferential conclusions you can come to which are in effect implicit agreements. Once you accept that it must certainly be possible for someone to forget them. System does not need to be discussed to be agreed and therefore disclosable - and therefore forgettable! -- 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 Dec 10 11:44:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA0i7926711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:44:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA0i0H26707 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16DER0-00069G-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:36:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:53:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@127.0.0.1> <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20011207095813.00a22ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 11:14 AM 12/7/01, Grant wrote: > >>At 04:53 PM 12/6/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>whereas if my reading is correct, it would be a lot harder to rewrite >>>the footnote to make it any clearer. Perhaps something like, "For >>>the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, plays are to be considered >>>"normal" even if they would be careless or inferior for the class of >>>player involved, but not irrational." That, it >> >> Isn't it monumentally odd to include the phrase >>"for the class of player involved" if the class of player >>involved is totally irrelevant to claim rulings? > >Not at all, given history. The 1975 Laws, which were a lot more >specific, used (in the context of declarer dealing with an outstanding >trump) the words "any normal play (including the careless or inferior >but not the irrational)". But despite the strictures of the laws, one >saw rulings where far from adequately described claims were allowed to >the better players (or friends of the adjudicators) on grounds of >nothing more than "we're sure that if he had played the hand out he'd >have made it." So when the 1987 Laws added the footnote, it was not at >all amiss to read it as mentioning class of player specifically to >reinforce the point that just because a particular player was so good >that one could be confident that he would not have taken a line that, >for him, would be distinctly careless or inferior did not mean that >that line would be disregarded; only irrational lines were to be >disregarded, regardless of the class of the player who claimed. That >was clearly what the 1975 wording intended, and it made much more sense >at the time to read the rewording as a clarification, for which there >was apparent need, rather than a reversal, for which there was, AFAIK, >no favorable sentiment at all. > >Fourteen years later the WBFLC has stated that that was not their >intention. For me, this means now having to concern myself with how >the players in the event I'm directing stack up in bridge ability >relative to one another. For the most part I won't know, and, when I >do, I certainly don't want to have to go on record with what are, after >all, only my personal opinions, and can only alienate some players and >make my job harder. So I will continue to try to convince the WBF that >their reinterpretation is ill-advised, makes the game worse not better >overall, and should be withdrawn. Are you trying to tell me that when you make a judgement decision, any judgement decision, claim or otherwise, you are not prepared to allow a player's ability to affect your judgement? Wow! -- 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 Dec 10 11:44:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA0hxI26704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:43:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA0hlH26691 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:43:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16DEQp-00069J-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:36:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:38:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 References: <200112082328.SAA11175@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112082328.SAA11175@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 >[Card exposed during the auction is UI to that side.] > >From: David Stevenson >> No. I stand by our decision in Las Vegas. Nothing in this thread has >> made me change my mind yet. > >Well, Ton is with you. I'm curious whether you would have said the same >prior to 1997. > >It still seems to me that if a card face up on the table is supposed to >be UI, the lawmakers owe us a clear and unambiguous statement to that >effect. Else who could imagine it? During the auction it seems routine to me. Suppose you cue-bid in a slam auction and your LHO doubles. If a face-up card is AI you should immediately drop your whole hand face-up on the table. Partner must pass once, but that's ok, you just redouble, and partner can now pick the final contract. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 11:44:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA0hxo26703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:43:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA0hkH26690 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16DEQp-00069I-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:36:36 +0000 Message-ID: <2Ex8gbHJ$rE8Ew$d@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:35:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas References: <200111290002.QAA06904@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f901c17892$b3823da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <009c01c1801f$41c11940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009c01c1801f$41c11940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin L. French writes > >> >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. >> >> While I was in Las Vegas I was told that this guideline was never >> official. It was meant as a throwaway comment to cover a specific >> situation and not designed for general publication. I also know >which >> blabbermo... errrr highly respected member of the Committee >promulgated >> it. According to my information officially there is no such >guideline. >> >Rich Colker must have got to you. He hates the NOS guideline, and says >it does not apply anymore. But he is not the LC, and those guidelines >were established officially by the LC. They were published in the >Daily Bulletin of the NABC during which the LC met and made that >interpretation. It must have been about 1995. I used to have the >Bulletin clipping pasted in the Laws but a thief at an NABC stole my >jacket containing them. I can't refer anyone to the minutes of that >meeting, as the recently published LC minutes don't go back that far. > >I suppose someone could have put that into the Bulletin without the >blessing of the LC, but it seems unlikely. The announcement started >out with something like "The ACBL Laws Committee has established the >following guidelines," not as a vague instruction coming out of >nowhere. There has certainly been nothing official to annul them. > >The NOS guideline has been ridiculed by Colker and others, but common >sense would take it for what it was, and what it was described as >being: a guideline, nothing more. TDs and ACs did not understand >L12C2's language and wanted the LC to tell them what "the most >favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that >was at all probable" meant, as they seemed somewhat vague, especially >the former. Did a result have to be "likely"? No, something like a 1/3 >chance would be good enough. Did a result have to be "probable"? No, >but we want a stiffer criterion for the OS, so let's say something >like a 1/6 chance. Don't take these numbers seriously, they are only >guidelines. > >I remember you, David, said at one time that the guidelines seemed >okay to you, and actually they are okay. No, I believe they are far too high. If you have four reasonably equal possibilities I do not want someone giving A+ because there is no likely possibility. -- 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 Dec 10 12:01:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA10oQ26747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:00:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA10iH26743 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:00:44 +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 16DEhI-000NfB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:53:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:52:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas NABC Appeal No. 1 References: <00ef01c1788d$18d33020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014501c1794e$3899d460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f501c17fa5$ddf46f80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e601c18053$fff260c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> This still makes absolutely no sense. I do not equate non-forcing >> with signoff, discouraging or anything else: but no agreement does >> **not** mean non-forcing. If you play it as non-forcing you have an >> agreement. No agreement means you have no agreement about whether it is >> forcing or not [inter alia]. >> >And that makes no sense to me. If you have no agreement on the matter, it >cannot be said that a new suit is forcing. If you can't say that, you check >the non-forcing box. It's either forcing or it's not, there is no middle >ground. When asked if you are married, you can't say "undecided." > >All right, there is a check box for Stayman. If you don't check it, you >can't use it. Saying "undecided" doesn't pass muster. You are going to give players an agreement they do not have? Why? And why not the reverse? No, Marvin, no-one made you the guru as to what people play, and you cannot insist they play your way. If a pair doe snto have an agreement as to a 2C response to 1NT [unlikely] then they do not have to agree what *you* want them to agree. -- 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 Dec 10 12:45:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA1jIE26787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:45:18 +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.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 fBA1jCH26783 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:45:13 +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 fBA1bv929410; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:37:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 20:37:39 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Experience of partner = partnership experience? To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011209203802-R01010800-96e8967f-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 12/9/01 at 1:48 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Think it through. When you play in a group etc there are certain > inferential conclusions you can come to which are in effect implicit > agreements. Once you accept that it must certainly be possible for > someone to forget them. > > System does not need to be discussed to be agreed and therefore > disclosable - and therefore forgettable! I give up. Maybe I should stick to solitaire. :-( 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 12:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA1wCZ26802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:58:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA1w6H26798 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:58:06 +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 fBA1oqG16421; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 02:50:52 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBA1oqW21834; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 02:50:52 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 02:50:52 +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 Sat, 8 Dec 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > When I first got to Chicago O'Hare I found a severe language problem > in attempting to get a cup of tea. When I finally succeeded I found it > contained no milk. > > On the way home I was getting relatively fluent, looking for restrooms > and so forth. I had also learnt to ask for "hot tea, plain, with milk". Given that it is trivial to add milk to a cup of tea (or lemon, sugar, rum for that matter), but that it is close to impossible to remove milk (or lemon, sugar, rum) from that cup of tea, I've never understood the British habit of adding milk (but no rum) without asking. 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 Mon Dec 10 13:31:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA2V0I26842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:31:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA2UuH26838 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:30:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-142.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.142] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16DGCT-0007K1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:29:50 +1300 Message-ID: <002801c18121$ddb7d200$8e6837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:24:56 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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, My first post. I am from New Zealand, and our daughter, Mary, has landed home from university for the weekend, with a new kitten which is named Mo. (t'was our daughter's nickname at school). I have enjoyed reading BLML, and am much wiser and better informed than I was 12 months ago. Still a long way to go though :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "stefan filonardi" To: Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > Hello, > > On 8 Dec 2001, at 21:16, David Stevenson wrote: > > > But with an interpretation from the official body > > our hands are tied. > > I do not doubt one second that David is giving us the right > informations about this, but I will show you what happens to me > when I hear that official comments do exist. > > I go to the official homepage of the WBF-Law's there I do not > find anything but the text of Laws. So I start to think where > can be this official interpretations, oh maybe in the minutes of > the meetings. Of course I do not find them on the WBF homepage, > so lets go to the homepage of the one that is making the largest > effords to help people about Law's matters on the web, to David > Stevenson's homepage (a deeply meant *thank you* David). Also, a big thank you from this kiwi. > > There I print out the minutes and have to search about an > eventual interpretation between a lot of not law related stuff. > > Now I would love to hear from you, that I am goodwilled but I > could easily find the official interpretations at ..... and that > the WBF-LC is already making some tide document about every > official interpretation just missing to put them on their > official homepage. > > It is so easy to put documents on the web, the WBF-LC should > make a larger use of this tool. -----and so say all of us. Seriously though, to find an official interpretation by the WBFLC, of all the laws on the one website is this Director's dream. Not tomorrow, but sometime in the not too distant future. > > ciao stefan :) > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 14:16:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA3GKf26881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA3G9H26870 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:10 +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 16DGoF-0006eZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:08:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:01:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 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 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >. . . . (snip - I thnk we remember the essence) >> The trouble with all this, Sven, is that the WBFLC has said this is >> not the way it is done. They have pronounced on the matter, so I >> suggest we just follow their pronouncement. They say the double is >> cancelled. Our ruling is based on an insufficient bid of 1NT. > >> Your conclusions may be reasonable. The EBU had reached different >> conclusions. But with an interpretation from the official body our >> hands are tied. > >Well, once in a while there seems to be an official pronouncement >unknown to me, and as long as I have no access to it (can you give >me an URL?) I for one do not feel tied. > >Furthermore as I consider this pronouncement (if true) to be flawed >I am not going to adhere until I have better justification. > >I would like to hear some authority (preferably WBFLC) clarify how >the following auction (identical to the one under dispute except >for one minor detail) shall be handled under this pronouncement >(assuming that it has been correctly understood): It clearly has not. The WBFLC said that the correction is cancelled. Nothing more. >West North East South > pass 1D >1NT 1NT "insufficient!" > X XX > >Consistent with what has been claimed so far the double by North >is cancelled but the redouble by East is not, so we end up with >the illegal auction 1NT in North being redoubled by East. > >This is of course nonsense, or is it the official policy by WBFLC >that East-West shall now be faced with Law 36? Of course, the way this has been argued on this thread, this position is ridiculous, and far more sensible is >West North East South > pass 1D >1NT 1NT "insufficient!" > X X because the double by East condones the double by North. -- 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 Dec 10 14:16:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA3GJl26880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA3G8H26867 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:08 +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 16DGoF-0006eS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:58:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 >On 12/8/01 at 9:20 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Cannot be right: why not? Why should we have any sympathy for players >> that cannot be bothered to call the TD after an irregularity. > >It's not a question of sympathy. If you cancel the double, yet leave the >subsequent pass in place, then you have put a "hole" in the bidding. There ain't >no place in the laws that I can see that supports doing that. > >There was an irregularity (insufficient bid). Attention was drawn to it, if by >nothing else, then by the attempt to change it. Once attention is drawn to it, >(1) the Director must be called [L9B1(a)] and (2) no player may take any action >until the Director has explained the governing laws [L9B2]. Therefor, the >Director should, IMO, once he gets to the table, first cancel *any* action taken >after attention was drawn. In this case, that would include *both* the double >and the pass. > >I do not see how the WBFLC position can support calling East's pass in this case >an acceptance of the insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. >You state that it does. I'm not convinced. Now do not misquote me, please. The WBF position is that the correction is cancelled. Anything else is my conclusions. Under what Law is the pass cancelled? In what way is it different from other "condoning" actions, which do *not* get cancelled by the TD? -- 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 Dec 10 14:16:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA3GIw26879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA3G7H26866 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:16:08 +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 16DGoF-0006eR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:08:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:55:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] UI 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 much that I agree with but concluded with: > >> However, there is one thing that probably is suggested by the UI: on a >> borderline pass/bid hand opposite with fair distribution, all reasons >> for doubt suggest bidding rather than passing. > >Which seemed somewhat inconsistent with: > >> Actually, one reason for doubt is holding too good a club holding. >> Two aces plus C KQJ is not a very good double since you would prefer to >> defend and partner might pull it. Sensibly though, partner will usually >> hesitate then pass with this hand! > >Since a slightly stronger hand than the above (ie some trick taking >potential plus good clubs and controls) will often lead to a slow double. I do not mind everyone saying I am wrong, but I am not inconsistent. When I argue that such and such a hand will hesitate then pass that is not a hand that will hesitate then double. -- 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 Dec 10 14:32:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA3WAV26907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:32:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA3W4H26903 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:32:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.8.35]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20011210032454.KTKN16633.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1812a$409990e0$2308ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> <002801c18121$ddb7d200$8e6837d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:25:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Crowe" To: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:24 AM Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > Hi, > My first post. I am from New Zealand, and our daughter, Mary, has landed > home from university for the weekend, with a new kitten which is named Mo. > (t'was our daughter's nickname at school). > > I have enjoyed reading BLML, and am much wiser and better informed than I > was 12 months ago. Still a long way to go though :) > Welcome Ray :-) David will I am sure register Mo on the BLML cats list. Do you not have a doggy? Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 16:38:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA5bml29617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:37:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA5bhH29613 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:37:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-174.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.174] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16DJ7F-0003C6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:36:38 +1300 Message-ID: <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> <002801c18121$ddb7d200$8e6837d2@oemcomputer> <000b01c1812a$409990e0$2308ff3e@jones1> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:31:44 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:25 PM Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Crowe" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:24 AM > Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > > > > Hi, > > My first post. I am from New Zealand, and our daughter, Mary, has > landed > > home from university for the weekend, with a new kitten which is named > Mo. > > (t'was our daughter's nickname at school). > > > > I have enjoyed reading BLML, and am much wiser and better informed > than I > > was 12 months ago. Still a long way to go though :) > > > Welcome Ray :-) David will I am sure register Mo on the BLML cats list. > Do you not have a doggy? > Anne Yes, I have a very good sheepdog - a black and tan Collie. Her name is Pip. (I also farm approx. 2000 sheep----- I have tried counting them 1,2,3,4,5,6,--yawn ---zzzzzzzzz, sorry, just a silly kiwi joke :) Goodnight Ray > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 19:08:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA86l805384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:06:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBA86fH05380 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:06:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-81-91.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.81.91] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16DLIv-000OHq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: <006201c18150$c6c43a00$3247e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> <014f01c180db$8194f2a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:58:28 -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, December 09, 2001 5:57 PM Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > > > > It is so easy to put documents on the web, the WBF-LC should > > make a larger use of this tool. > > > And we should all resolve not to cite an interpretation of the > Laws, or a regulation, without quoting it exactly and giving a > location where it can be found. I refuse to accept any > undocumented dicta, as there is a lot of incorrect > word-of-mouth going around. > +=+ Since ton took the chair and I was made Secretary we have put the minutes about and they have been accessible on the web. I am still looking for the item David has mentioned to see exactly what was said, but have not hit on it so far. ~ 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 Dec 10 19:14:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA8EFe05400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:14:15 +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 fBA8E9H05396 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:14:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA13354; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:58 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 09:04:15 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 <01KBP4LRY1K0002KZD@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:44 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:40 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:42 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >>West north east south > >> pass 1 D > >>1 NT 1 NT > >> double pass > >>**************************************************************** > >> > >>> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north > substitutes a > >>>double. > >>> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. David Stevenson: > >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid > [1NT]. This > >>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from > North's 1NT and > >>East's pass. > > > >I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended > the pass in a > >different situation. > That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? > I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who > cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. > We all do David: having the opinion that we should follow the Laws. That probably is why there is some doubt about your approach. I join them. Try procedural penalties instead. ton > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 19:42:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA8g0W05419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:42:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA8fsH05415 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:41:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA22725; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:34:43 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 09:32:01 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 <01KBP5JZZKRA002L0L@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:34:19 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:34:15 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:34:10 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] UI To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , 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 > , Kooijman, A. writes > >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to > get your opinion > >about the following: > > > >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you > pass, LO passes > >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what > kind of UI do you > >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > > > > > My opinion is that when a player makes an out of tempo bid, > rather than > a pass, the UI transmitted is not clear, and thus the actions of his > partner are much less constrained than where he makes a slow pass. In > this case, the player may have been considering Pass, Double; > or Double, Bid; or Pass, Double, Bid. In general a fast happy double will more > likely be for penalties (but can be based on Quick Tricks rather than > trumps,) and a slow doubtful double will show high cards, but the > actions which are excluded as a result can not be determined by the > advancer. If this is your opinion, why do you add your next sentence then? Shouldn't the idea of a LA wait till we have defined or described the kind of suggestion coming from the hesitation? That is the reason I didn't give you the hand of the partner of the doubler. He has xxx xxx KQxxx xx. Now we all will agree that pass is a logical alternative to making a bid. But that is only relevant when the bid is suggested (they play teams). So he bid 5D which makes, where 5CX makes as well. Quite a difference. Pass is definitely a LA, Bidding a 6 or 7 card > suit is also a > LA, particularly with a singleton or void club. I'm not inclined to > adjust in these circumstances, unless the action is clearly > both bizarre and successful. > > The AI aspect is that doubler thinks the contract is going down :) Which is not very interesting. With a hand on which I double 5C with the expectation of making a contract on the 5-level, I may have the expectation that 5C goes down as well, isn't it? ton > > cheers john -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 20:00:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA902b05437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:00:02 +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 fBA8xtH05429 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:59:56 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA16250; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:52:45 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 09:50:02 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 <01KBP66X41X6002L16@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:52:01 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:51:57 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:51:53 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , 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 > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Force, unaided by judgement, collapses > under its own weight." [Q. Horatius Flaccus] But might cause a disastrous damage before. Is it a good idea to add the website to your one-liners? And add the one-liners as well, an impressive list by now. It might be a good idea to add the question/problem it more than once is related too, as well. This one has nothing to do with the WBFLC itself, I am sure, despite the comma added to the famous footnote. ton > > > It is so easy to put documents on the web, the WBF-LC should > > > make a larger use of this tool. > > > > > And we should all resolve not to cite an interpretation of the > > Laws, or a regulation, without quoting it exactly and giving a > > location where it can be found. I refuse to accept any > > undocumented dicta, as there is a lot of incorrect > > word-of-mouth going around. > > > +=+ Since ton took the chair and I was made Secretary we have > put the minutes about and they have been accessible on the web. > I am still looking for the item David has mentioned to see exactly > what was said, but have not hit on it so far. ~ G ~ +=+ > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 20:13:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA9CgY05459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:12:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA9CaH05455 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:12:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-32-136.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.32.136] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16DMNI-000BzZ-00; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:05:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c18159$fc1399e0$8820e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:04:41 -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: "David Stevenson" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 > > I do not see how the WBFLC position can support > calling East's pass in this case an acceptance of the > insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. > You state that it does. I'm not convinced. > +=+ I found the minute. 24th August 1998 in Lille. It reads: << " The committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. It was held that where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B.">> The words 'by the tournament director' indicate that the ruling is a direction to the TD; it does not say that the correction is cancelled prior to the director's intervention. The prime object of the committee was to correct a misinterpretation of the footnote by which some directors were omitting to apply 27A before going to 27B. ~ 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 Dec 10 20:36:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA9aW506067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:36:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBA9aQH06041 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:36:26 +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 JAA09116 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:29:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:27:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI 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 , Kooijman, A. writes > > >> , Kooijman, A. writes >> >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to >> get your opinion >> >about the following: >> > >> >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you >> pass, LO passes >> >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what >> kind of UI do you >> >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? >> > >> > >> My opinion is that when a player makes an out of tempo bid, >> rather than >> a pass, the UI transmitted is not clear, and thus the actions of his >> partner are much less constrained than where he makes a slow pass. In >> this case, the player may have been considering Pass, Double; >> or Double, Bid; or Pass, Double, Bid. In general a fast happy double will >more >> likely be for penalties (but can be based on Quick Tricks rather than >> trumps,) and a slow doubtful double will show high cards, but the >> actions which are excluded as a result can not be determined by the >> advancer. > >If this is your opinion, why do you add your next sentence then? Shouldn't >the idea of a LA wait till we have defined or described the kind of >suggestion coming from the hesitation? That is the reason I didn't give you >the hand of the partner of the doubler. He has xxx xxx KQxxx xx. Now we all >will agree that pass is a logical alternative to making a bid. But that is >only relevant when the bid is suggested (they play teams). So he bid 5D >which makes, where 5CX makes as well. Quite a difference. > > > Pass is definitely a LA, Bidding a 6 or 7 card >> suit is also a >> LA, particularly with a singleton or void club. I'm not inclined to >> adjust in these circumstances, unless the action is clearly >> both bizarre and successful. >> >> The AI aspect is that doubler thinks the contract is going down :) > >Which is not very interesting. With a hand on which I double 5C with the >expectation of making a contract on the 5-level, I may have the expectation >that 5C goes down as well, isn't it? > As ever one must ask oneself what would the player have done facing a fast, happy double? He may well have passed. Faced with the same decision a sizeable bunch of his peer group might well have passed too. I'm inclined to adjust. Had he been 3361, I'd be inclined not to adjust. cheers john. >ton > >> >> 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 Mon Dec 10 20:38:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA9br306352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:37:53 +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 fBA9bkH06333 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:37:46 +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 JAA09143 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:30:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:28:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> <002801c18121$ddb7d200$8e6837d2@oemcomputer> <000b01c1812a$409990e0$2308ff3e@jones1> <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer>, Ray Crowe writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Jones" >To: "blml" >Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:25 PM >Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ray Crowe" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:24 AM >> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) >> >> >> > Hi, >> > My first post. I am from New Zealand, and our daughter, Mary, has >> landed >> > home from university for the weekend, with a new kitten which is named >> Mo. >> > (t'was our daughter's nickname at school). >> > >> > I have enjoyed reading BLML, and am much wiser and better informed >> than I >> > was 12 months ago. Still a long way to go though :) >> > >> Welcome Ray :-) David will I am sure register Mo on the BLML cats list. >> Do you not have a doggy? >> Anne > >Yes, I have a very good sheepdog - a black and tan Collie. Her name is Pip. > >(I also farm approx. 2000 sheep----- I have tried counting them >1,2,3,4,5,6,--yawn ---zzzzzzzzz, sorry, just a silly kiwi joke :) > Their names please? I think Anne should keep the sheep list, she's Welsh. cheers john >Goodnight >Ray >> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 20:41:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA9fBJ07023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:41:11 +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 fBA9f5H07019 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:41:06 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA04337; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:33:55 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 10:31:13 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 <01KBP7LUJ55M002JWE@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:33:05 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:33:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:33:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Ed Reppert , David Stevenson , 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 > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Force, unaided by judgement, collapses > under its own weight." [Q. Horatius Flaccus] > + + + + + + + + + Ed: > > I do not see how the WBFLC position can support > > calling East's pass in this case an acceptance of the > > insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. > > You state that it does. I'm not convinced. You don't need to, David suggests things that are not in our minutes. Confusing statement though, having that authority. Let us be careful outside. ton > > > +=+ I found the minute. 24th August 1998 in Lille. It reads: > > << " The committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. > It was held that where an insufficient bid is prematurely > substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the > tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the > LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. > If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his > options to the offender and allows him to select his action, > applying Law 27B.">> > > The words 'by the tournament director' indicate that > the ruling is a direction to the TD; it does not say that > the correction is cancelled prior to the director's > intervention. The prime object of the committee was to > correct a misinterpretation of the footnote by which > some directors were omitting to apply 27A before going > to 27B. ~ 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 Dec 10 20:43:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBA9gvQ07035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:42:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBA9gpH07031 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:42:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBA9ZfY12864 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:35:41 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] UI 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: > >> Actually, one reason for doubt is holding too good a club holding. > >> Two aces plus C KQJ is not a very good double since you would prefer > >> to defend and partner might pull it. Sensibly though, partner will > >> usually hesitate then pass with this hand! > >Since a slightly stronger hand than the above (ie some trick taking > >potential plus good clubs and controls) will often lead to a slow > double. > > I do not mind everyone saying I am wrong, but I am not inconsistent. > When I argue that such and such a hand will hesitate then pass that is > not a hand that will hesitate then double. Sorry David. I felt the reason you gave in the above sentence would indeed lead to hesitation then double on some stronger holdings. I read the second sentence as saying that even with the example you gave it will *usually* go hesitation-pass, and sometimes (or whatever always-usually is equal to) go hesitation-double. I agreed with all of that If you are really suggesting that the "too good clubs" reason can be ignored when considering the UI then I disagree. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 21:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAALEb07058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:21:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAAL7H07054 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:21:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBAADpT10869 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:13:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:13:47 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/10/2001 11:13:50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >> Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >. . . . (snip - I thnk we remember the essence) >>I would like to hear some authority (preferably WBFLC) clarify how >>the following auction (identical to the one under dispute except >>for one minor detail) shall be handled under this pronouncement >>(assuming that it has been correctly understood): > It clearly has not. The WBFLC said that the correction is cancelled. >Nothing more. >>West North East South >> pass 1D >>1NT 1NT "insufficient!" >> X XX >> >>Consistent with what has been claimed so far the double by North >>is cancelled but the redouble by East is not, so we end up with >>the illegal auction 1NT in North being redoubled by East. >> >>This is of course nonsense, or is it the official policy by WBFLC >>that East-West shall now be faced with Law 36? > Of course, the way this has been argued on this thread, this position >is ridiculous, and far more sensible is >West North East South > pass 1D >1NT 1NT "insufficient!" > X X >because the double by East condones the double by North. Wouldn't the double by East now be a violation of law 19A1? Trying to figure out the foundation for the various claims I end up with a suspicion that WBFLC must have ruled the original case to be covered by law 28B (Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation) and/or Law 33 (Simultaneous Calls). If either of those were applicable here I would agree with Davids position, but the way the case in this thread has been described my firm opinion is that they are not. I'm looking forward to see the outcome of Grattans search so we can know exactly what was said by WBFLC. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 22:40:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBABddr15428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:39:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBABdVH15385 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:39:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBABW9e23449; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:32:09 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:32:07 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/10/2001 12:32:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk +=+ I found the minute. 24th August 1998 in Lille. It reads: << " The committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. It was held that where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B.">> The words 'by the tournament director' indicate that the ruling is a direction to the TD; it does not say that the correction is cancelled prior to the director's intervention. The prime object of the committee was to correct a misinterpretation of the footnote by which some directors were omitting to apply 27A before going to 27B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This footnote seems not to have been there in the 1987 laws, it was entered in the 1997 issue, and in view of Law25B2a it seems rather superfluous. So what was the purpose of this footnote? Was (is) it the understanding of the committee that while an illegal call is prematurely changed to another call so that Law25B1 otherwise would apply, this is no longer so when the illegal call was an insufficient bid? (LHO may not accept the substitution in this case?) And is it the intention of the committee that when cancelling the prematurely substituted call any subsequent call by LHO still stands as if it were intended over the original call even if the director should determine that the call by LHO was intended to apply over the substitution? If this is so, how does the committee suggest the director to handle the case where the subsequent call by LHO is legal over the (cancelled) substitution but illegal over the original call? I am looking forward to answers! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 10 23:02:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAC2Ga20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:02:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAC29H20537 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:02:10 +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 16DP1J-000Eba-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:49:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes > >> >>West north east south >> >> pass 1 D >> >>1 NT 1 NT >> >> double pass >> >>**************************************************************** >> >> >> >>> When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north >> substitutes a >> >>>double. >> >>> East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. > > >David Stevenson: > >> >> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid >> [1NT]. This >> >>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from >> North's 1NT and >> >>East's pass. >> > >> >I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended >> the pass in a >> >different situation. > > > > > >> That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? > >> I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who >> cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. >> > > >We all do David: having the opinion that we should follow the Laws. That >probably is why there is some doubt about your approach. I join them. Try >procedural penalties instead. I am not ignoring the Laws of bridge so as to punish a player for not calling the TD. But people are basically saying that we should cancel a call because it is not fair otherwise with no reference to a Law. Fine, show me a Law, show me I am wrong. But saying I am wrong because a player who should have called the TD did not is insufficient. Suppose the bidding goes 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not fair [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It isn't fair". -- 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 Dec 11 00:03:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAD2PZ20573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:02:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAD2IH20569 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:02:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-173.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.173]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBACt4J14372 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:55:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C14AEFB.4020105@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:47:55 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had not really been paying attention to this thread, but when David issues a challenge, I cannot resist. David Stevenson wrote: > Kooijman, A. writes > >>>>>West north east south >>>>> pass 1 D >>>>>1 NT 1 NT >>>>> double pass >>>>>**************************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north >>>>>> >>>substitutes a >>> >>>>>>double. >>>>>>East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. >>>>>> >> >>David Stevenson: >> >> >>>>> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid >>>>> >>>[1NT]. This >>> >>>>>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from >>>>> >>>North's 1NT and >>> >>>>>East's pass. >>>>> >>>>I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended >>>> >>>the pass in a >>> >>>>different situation. >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? >>> >>> I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who >>>cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. >>> >>> >> >>We all do David: having the opinion that we should follow the Laws. That >>probably is why there is some doubt about your approach. I join them. Try >>procedural penalties instead. >> > > I am not ignoring the Laws of bridge so as to punish a player for not > calling the TD. But people are basically saying that we should cancel a > call because it is not fair otherwise with no reference to a Law. Fine, > show me a Law, show me I am wrong. But saying I am wrong because a > player who should have called the TD did not is insufficient. > > Suppose the bidding goes > > 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" > > The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. > Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not fair > [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. > > All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some > inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It isn't > fair". > > Well David, how about L25B1. You see David, your example and the original are not the same. In your example, the 1D condones the insufficient call. But in the original, there were two infractions: an insufficient call, and an illegal change of call. Both can be condoned, and both are condoned by the next player calling. Now of course, the Laws do not say which of the infractions is the one that is condoned. And they should not. since both can be condoned, the player doing the condoning can choose which. And we, as director, should not force him to condone the one when he wishes to condone the other. (OK, this may be under discussion, but please in a different thread). So the people saying "it's not fair" may not have given a reference, but I believe I have. And indeed, it is not fair. OK, David ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 00:16:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBADGVG20593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:16:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBADGPH20589 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:16:25 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA03480; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:09:14 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 14:06:27 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 <01KBPF4VF5HW002KKN@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:08:27 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:08:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:08:23 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David: > >> That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? > > > >> I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who > >> cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. ton: > > > >We all do David: having the opinion that we should follow > the Laws. That > >probably is why there is some doubt about your approach. I > join them. Try > >procedural penalties instead. David: > I am not ignoring the Laws of bridge so as to punish a > player for not > calling the TD. But people are basically saying that we > should cancel a > call because it is not fair otherwise with no reference to a > Law. Fine, > show me a Law, show me I am wrong. But saying I am wrong because a > player who should have called the TD did not is insufficient. > > Suppose the bidding goes > > 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" > > The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. > Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it > is not fair > [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. > > All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some > inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than > saying "It isn't > fair". > > -- > David Stevenson Well you could give the right example by telling us on which Law you base your decision to let the pass stand. But I have to agree that there is no law saying that when a player substitutes a legal call for an insufficient call and the case is brought to the attention of the TD after his LHO has made a call the TD has to remove both calls. It is more a matter of common sense. The same happens in L21, 25, 35, etc.? Suppose it goes 1NT - 2S - 2D (LHO: that is insufficient; oh sorry, 3H - double. TD! TD explains and the insufficient bid is replaced by pass. Are you now treating the double as inadmissible? Very consequent, but rather strange, isn't it? ( I am looking for a good example for the application of L 11a for years now, and thanks to your vision I might have found it. I could let the insufficient bidder change his call in any legal call - not being a double -without applying the pass penalty for his partner.) ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 00:25:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBADOmL20637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:24:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBADOgH20623 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:24:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-105-46.btinternet.com ([213.122.105.46] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16DQJG-0003G4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:17:31 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:16:39 -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 DWS wrote: > Suppose the bidding goes > > 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" > > The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. > Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not fair > [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. > > All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some > inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It isn't > fair". No, no - this is perfectly OK, for nothing is going to happen to the 1C bid (it isn't going to be cancelled), and L27A applies. But the original question (so far as I have understood it) seems to me to concern a pass that followed a 1NT bid for which an inadmissible double was substituted. This was the sequence of events: South 1D West 1NT North 1NT Someone "You can't do that - it's insufficient" North Double East Pass Now, North's double is going to be cancelled (per L27B3). Per L35A, East's pass is also going to be cancelled (because it was a call subsequent to an inadmissible double). The auction reverts to North (whose turn it is to call). He has already made a call (1NT), and East (who has done nothing in respect of that call, since his pass has been cancelled) now has the option to accept North's 1NT. In short, since East's pass followed North's double, it is cancelled, and ceases to have any effect. In particular, it does not have the effect of condoning North's 1NT. Not only is this "fair", it also appears to me quite obvious. I see nothing in the WBFLC minute quoted by Grattan that is at variance with this view. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 00:32:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBADWZ422484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:32:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBADWTH22466 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:32:29 +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 fBADPHP83172 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:25:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:27:32 -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 07:06 AM 12/8/01, twm wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a > > claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" > > is! If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to > tell me > > that I must nevertheless base my ruling on it. > >If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings >either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. Why not? There is nothing in the UI rules that makes adjudication dependent on the class of player. (Which player would that be, anyhow?) I may have to ask about facts, about methods, etc., but I don't have to ask anyone, "How good a bridge player are you?" There does seem to be a problem developing in the ACBL, where there is a growing tendency to overlook the fact that the footnote in question applies to L69-71 only, and to apply it, complete with a liberal reading of "for the class of player involved", to any law where one is required to judge things like "normal", "likely", "probable", etc., which is only feeding the widespread perception that the laws are written to give more favorable rulings to the better players. >Of course the simple solution is to give a everyone the benefit of the >doubt (at least once). Just ask the player "Did you realise the suit >could be blocked?" and expect an honest answer. If my opponents place >their monetary gains above their personal integrity I know who to look >out >for in future. If they do it for master points I know who to pity. Expecting an honest answer is bad psychology in such situations, notwithstanding that the player asked will try to answer honestly. Players can be relied on for the most part to give honest replies to questions about facts, methods, etc., but if you ask a player who hasn't thought about a problem, "Do you realize there's a problem here?", they will often see the problem instantly, not consciously realize that they had given it no thought previously, and answer affirmatively. Not a conscious lie, just human nature. Or if they are BLML readers they will be quick to claim that it would have been irrational *for them* to overlook it. Now, if you choose to rule against them, you must first go on record as disagreeing with their assessment of their own level of play. TDs shouldn't have to -- shouldn't even be allowed, much less required to -- make such judgments in order to rule correctly. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 00:52:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBADq8o24363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:52:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBADq2H24359 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:52:03 +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 fBADipK04680 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:44:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210084107.00b4f100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:47:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Trick 12 claim In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011206163525.00abda00@127.0.0.1> <3C0F6499.5030507@village.uunet.be> <3C0E155C.5000504@village.uunet.be> <006501c17d9c$93091260$65327ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20011207095813.00a22ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20011208165457.00b72390@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:53 PM 12/8/01, David wrote: > Are you trying to tell me that when you make a judgement decision, any >judgement decision, claim or otherwise, you are not prepared to allow a >player's ability to affect your judgement? Wow! Better to say that I'm prepared not to allow a player's ability to affect my judgment. I may not always manage to do so, but I firmly believe that it is an objective I should strive for. Of course, if it were really the player's ability that would affect my judgment it would not be a problem worthy of all this discussion, but it's not. Rather, what can affect my judgment can only be my (or someone else's) personal evaluation of the player's ability, which is inevitably subjective and arguable. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 01:08:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAE8FX25981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:08:15 +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 fBAE88H25952 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:08:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA02112; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:00:57 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 14:58:17 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 <01KBPGXMM09Y002LF8@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:59:54 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:59:49 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:59:51 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.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 Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell about another case we had in my country. The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the result on the board for them: - 7 imps. Already routine? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 01:47:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAElPt28048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:47:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAElJH28044 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:47:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBAEe5R10496 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:40:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:40 +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: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> > >If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings > >either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. > > Why not? There is nothing in the UI rules that makes adjudication > dependent on the class of player. (Which player would that be, > anyhow?) I may have to ask about facts, about methods, etc., but I > don't have to ask anyone, "How good a bridge player are you?" I thought it was generally accepted that in UI rulings possible LAs were judged on what a players *peers* might do, as is the case in the UK. I don't see how one can consider a player's peers without making a determination about the class of player. > which is only feeding the widespread perception that the laws are > written to give more favorable rulings to the better players. I would have expected the opposite effect when applied in the UI context. Generally I believe poorer players have fewer LAs and are less capable of identifying what UI suggests than good players. This approach certainly appears to be the one taken by UK TDs. > Expecting an honest answer is bad psychology in such situations, > notwithstanding that the player asked will try to answer > honestly. Players can be relied on for the most part to give honest > replies to questions about facts, methods, etc., but if you ask a > player who hasn't thought about a problem, "Do you realize there's a > problem here?", they will often see the problem instantly, not > consciously realize that they had given it no thought previously, and > answer affirmatively. Not a conscious lie, just human nature. Perhaps because you used the wrong tense for the question. > Or if they are BLML readers they will be quick to claim that it would > have been irrational *for them* to overlook it. Now, if you choose to > rule against them, you must first go on record as disagreeing with > their assessment of their own level of play. Just as you would do were you to give a UI ruling against a BLML reader. If you do rule you must consider them wrong on (at least) one of; their ethics, their judgement, their identification of their own peers. I think the second and third options (both relating to level of play) are rather less contentious than the first. > TDs shouldn't have to -- > shouldn't even be allowed, much less required to -- make such judgments > in order to rule correctly. Perhaps they shouldn't - but under the current laws they are, all the time. Personally I think that good TDs use this to their advantage in achieving 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 Tue Dec 11 02:11:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAFAXl28066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:10:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAFAQH28062 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:10:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBAF3Bg24372 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:03:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:03:12 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/10/2001 16:03:11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a feeling it is time to close the thread on Law27B3 and instead focus on the footnote in Law25B1. This footnote was apparently new with the 1997 laws and seems to introduce much confusion and (I hope unintended) complications. On its face the footnote serves to disable Law25 when a call is changed and the original call was an insufficient bid. The effect of this would be that LHO never has the option to accept a premature attempt by offender to correct an insufficient bid to another call like he has in all other cases when an offender attempts prematurely to correct an illegal call. Or in other words: Unlike premature attempts to correct other illegal calls the offender can not be forced to stick with his premature correction of an insufficient bid into a valid call. Is this really the intention? The footnote can hardly have any other useful purpose, because without it we shall always be directed to Law27 (from Law25B2) if LHO does not condone the insufficient bid. So what about the undesirable consequences (unless we understand Law35 to apply also when a call is cancelled under Law25B1 which strictly speaking it does not today)? A player LHO to the offending player who is unaware of this tiny change in Law25B1 and who is perfectly satisfied with the offenders premature correction of an insufficient bid, and therefore condones this (he thinks) by making a legal call in proper rotation may suddenly be faced with several offences, the least of which is a violation of law11A. More seriously he may be faced vith a violation of Law19 leading to penalty under Law36. And, as we have seen, he may find himself forced into defending a contract he would not dream of letting opponents play (unless he bids for a contract which he never would dream of for himself). I seriously doubt that any of this ever was the intention of WBFLC, and I suggest, even assume, that a clarification should lead to the removal again of the footnote in Law25B1. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 02:32:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAFWfJ28084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:32:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAFWZH28080 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:32:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA30865; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:25:24 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 10 16:22:42 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 <01KBPJVL9GHG002LIO@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:24:32 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:24:28 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:24:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 To: "'Sven.Pran@alcatel.no'" , 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 > > I have a feeling it is time to close the thread on Law27B3 and > instead focus on the footnote in Law25B1. This footnote was > apparently new with the 1997 laws and seems to introduce > much confusion and (I hope unintended) complications. > > On its face the footnote serves to disable Law25 when a call > is changed and the original call was an insufficient bid. > > The effect of this would be that LHO never has the option to > accept a premature attempt by offender to correct an > insufficient bid to another call like he has in all other cases > when an offender attempts prematurely to correct an illegal > call. > > Or in other words: Unlike premature attempts to correct other > illegal calls the offender can not be forced to stick with his > premature correction of an insufficient bid into a valid call. > > Is this really the intention? > > The footnote can hardly have any other useful purpose, > because without it we shall always be directed to Law27 > (from Law25B2) if LHO does not condone the insufficient bid. > > So what about the undesirable consequences (unless we > understand Law35 to apply also when a call is cancelled > under Law25B1 which strictly speaking it does not today)? > > A player LHO to the offending player who is unaware of this > tiny change in Law25B1 and who is perfectly satisfied with > the offenders premature correction of an insufficient bid, and > therefore condones this (he thinks) by making a legal call in > proper rotation may suddenly be faced with several offences, > the least of which is a violation of law11A. More seriously he > may be faced vith a violation of Law19 leading to penalty > under Law36. And, as we have seen, he may find himself > forced into defending a contract he would not dream of letting > opponents play (unless he bids for a contract which he never > would dream of for himself). > > I seriously doubt that any of this ever was the intention of WBFLC, > and I suggest, even assume, that a clarification should lead to > the removal again of the footnote in Law25B1. > Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted (if I rememeber this well). But I agree that we might reconsider this situation in our task to rewrite the laws. I do have less problems with treating LHO as offender than you seem to have. Other than when accepting a call out of turn, LHO as well as his RHO and the other players are offending the laws. As soon as an irregularity has been established the TD has to be called. And by changing a call attention is drawn and all four players are aware of such an irregularity. Which is not necessarily the case when accepting a COOT, which could be done inadvertently. ton > regards Sven > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 11 02:52:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAFqSH28337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:52:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAFqMH28314 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:52:22 +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 KAA29484 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03432 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:45:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:45:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112101545.KAA03432@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > No, I believe they are far too high. > > If you have four reasonably equal possibilities I do not want someone > giving A+ because there is no likely possibility. I trust we all agree with this, but I don't see that it has anything to do with the question under discussion, which I understand to be _which one_ of the four possibilities you give each side. Under the (alleged?) ACBL guideline, you would give the NOS the second best of the four and the OS the worst of the four. Sounds OK to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 03:26:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAGQVH00208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:26:31 +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 fBAGQQH00203 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:26:27 +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 LAA01661 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03468 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:19:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:19:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112101619.LAA03468@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted (if I rememeber > this well). Sorry, Ton, I'm afraid either the above did not come out as you intended or else your memory is as bad as mine. L27A was unchanged in the 1997 Laws, and in 1987 there was only a trivial change in wording having no effect that I can see. My memory says it was possible to accept an insufficient bid even before 1975, but as noted above this may not be trustworthy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 03:29:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAGTVQ00220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:29:31 +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 fBAGTQH00216 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:29:26 +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 LAA01856 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03478 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112101622.LAA03478@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Suppose you cue-bid in a slam auction and your LHO doubles. If a > face-up card is AI you should immediately drop your whole hand face-up > on the table. Partner must pass once, but that's ok, you just redouble, > and partner can now pick the final contract. Very clever, but it won't work. There's L72A1 and 72B2, of course, which were always there. Since 1997 we also have 72B1, which is even more likely to be effective. And finally there's always the possibility for the opponents to buy the contract and play against 13 penalty cards. In other contexts, you have said "just follow the laws." I don't see why the same doesn't apply here, even if we might wish the laws to be different from what they are. I'm still curious whether you think the status of a card exposed during the auction changed in 1997, and if so, why. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 03:39:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAGdQQ00234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:39:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAGdJH00230 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:39:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-59-149.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.59.149] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16DTLc-000109-00; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:32:08 +0000 Message-ID: <008601c18197$ff320ec0$ad04e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:29:41 -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: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 10 December 2001 11:32 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 > > > > > This footnote seems not to have been there in > the 1987 laws, it was entered in the 1997 issue, > and in view of Law25B2a it seems rather > superfluous. So what was the purpose of this > footnote? > +=+ The effect of the footnote is that when the original bid was insufficient (and 25A does not apply) the infraction is dealt with under Law 27 and Law 25B does not apply. When it was apparent that this requirement was not being interpreted uniformly, the WBFLC stated, in Lille, what is correctly to be done.+=+ >>> > And is it the intention of the committee that > when cancelling the prematurely substituted > call any subsequent call by LHO still stands > as if it were intended over the original call > even if the director should determine that the > call by LHO was intended to apply over the > substitution? > +=+ The minute makes it clear that LHO is to have the opportunity of accepting the original call, for which purpose the auction is rolled back to that point. If he does not accept it, the offender is entitled to be informed of his options before selecting his action, and the auction then proceeds. Save for a possible Law 16 consideration any prior action of LHO has been removed. ~ 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 Dec 11 03:47:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAGlKb00253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:47:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAGlFH00248 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:47:15 +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 IAA10346; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:39:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200112101639.IAA10346@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:16:39 GMT." <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:40:01 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > Suppose the bidding goes > > > > 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" > > > > The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. > > Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not > fair > > [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. > > > > All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some > > inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It > isn't > > fair". > > No, no - this is perfectly OK, for nothing is going to happen to the 1C > bid (it isn't going to be cancelled), and L27A applies. > > But the original question (so far as I have understood it) seems to me > to concern a pass that followed a 1NT bid for which an inadmissible > double was substituted. This was the sequence of events: > > South 1D > West 1NT > North 1NT > Someone "You can't do that - it's insufficient" > North Double > East Pass > > Now, North's double is going to be cancelled (per L27B3). Per L35A, > East's pass is also going to be cancelled (because it was a call > subsequent to an inadmissible double). I don't think North's double is an "inadmissible" double. It's disallowed by L27B3, of course; however, it seems clear from L35 that an "inadmissible" double is defined as one that is not permitted by Law 19, and Law 19 says nothing about doubles made to attempt to correct insufficient bids. Therefore, L35 doesn't apply here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 04:07:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAH5gK00271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:05:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAH5aH00267 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:05:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:58:25 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E61A@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:58:24 +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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 17:19 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 > > > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted > (if I rememeber > > this well). > > Sorry, Ton, I'm afraid either the above did not come out as you > intended or else your memory is as bad as mine. L27A was unchanged in > the 1997 Laws, and in 1987 there was only a trivial change in wording > having no effect that I can see. > > My memory says it was possible to accept an insufficient bid even > before 1975, but as noted above this may not be trustworthy. Before 1997, a correction attempt of an insufficient bid before the TD arrived could not be accepted. I guess that was what Ton meant. -- 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 Dec 11 04:08:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAH8UZ00283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:08:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAH8OH00279 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:08:25 +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 16DTnd-000EiX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:01:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:23:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001c01c18159$fc1399e0$8820e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001c01c18159$fc1399e0$8820e150@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: "Ed Reppert" >> I do not see how the WBFLC position can support >> calling East's pass in this case an acceptance of the >> insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. >> You state that it does. I'm not convinced. >+=+ I found the minute. 24th August 1998 in Lille. It reads: > << " The committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. >It was held that where an insufficient bid is prematurely >substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the >tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the >LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. >If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his >options to the offender and allows him to select his action, >applying Law 27B.">> > > The words 'by the tournament director' indicate that >the ruling is a direction to the TD; it does not say that >the correction is cancelled prior to the director's >intervention. The prime object of the committee was to >correct a misinterpretation of the footnote by which >some directors were omitting to apply 27A before going >to 27B. An interesting view: the EBU certainly never would tolerate a TD omitting to apply L27A and yet we were told that our reading of the Laws was altered by this minute. In fact, it is fair to say that it was. Anyway, this seems to have proved that I was correct that the WBFLC had said that a premature correction is cancelled. I do not understand what difference it makes that it is not cancelled prior to the TD's intervention. -- 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 Dec 11 04:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAH93900305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:09:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAH8sH00295 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:08:54 +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 16DTnq-000Ic7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:01:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:27:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 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 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >>. . . . (snip - I thnk we remember the essence) >>>I would like to hear some authority (preferably WBFLC) clarify how >>>the following auction (identical to the one under dispute except >>>for one minor detail) shall be handled under this pronouncement >>>(assuming that it has been correctly understood): > >> It clearly has not. The WBFLC said that the correction is cancelled. >>Nothing more. > >>>West North East South >>> pass 1D >>>1NT 1NT "insufficient!" >>> X XX >>> >>>Consistent with what has been claimed so far the double by North >>>is cancelled but the redouble by East is not, so we end up with >>>the illegal auction 1NT in North being redoubled by East. >>> >>>This is of course nonsense, or is it the official policy by WBFLC >>>that East-West shall now be faced with Law 36? > >> Of course, the way this has been argued on this thread, this position >>is ridiculous, and far more sensible is > >>West North East South >> pass 1D >>1NT 1NT "insufficient!" >> X X > >>because the double by East condones the double by North. >Wouldn't the double by East now be a violation of law 19A1? > >Trying to figure out the foundation for the various claims I end up >with a suspicion that WBFLC must have ruled the original case to be >covered by law 28B (Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of >Rotation) and/or Law 33 (Simultaneous Calls). If either of those >were applicable here I would agree with Davids position, but the way >the case in this thread has been described my firm opinion is that >they are not. > >I'm looking forward to see the outcome of Grattans search so we can >know exactly what was said by WBFLC. The WBFLC said that a premature correction is cancelled. Now, how does that impinge on this problem? -- 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 Dec 11 04:09:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAH93X00306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:09:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAH8sH00298 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:08:55 +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 16DTnq-000Ic6-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:01:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:26:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >Ed: >> > I do not see how the WBFLC position can support >> > calling East's pass in this case an acceptance of the >> > insufficient bid that preceded North's cancelled double. >> > You state that it does. I'm not convinced. >You don't need to, David suggests things that are not in our minutes. >Confusing statement though, having that authority. Let us be careful >outside. It is true that I suggested something that is not in your minutes. It is true that I did not mean it is in your minutes. It is true that Ed misread it. But so what? Who cares whether it is in any minutes. Why is no-one prepared to tell me why it is wrong? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 04:14:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAHEEX00328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:14:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAHE9H00324 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:14:09 +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 JAA10824; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:40:01 PST." <200112101639.IAA10346@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:56 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > I don't think North's double is an "inadmissible" double. It's > disallowed by L27B3, of course; however, it seems clear from L35 Law 36 is even clearer about it. > that > an "inadmissible" double is defined as one that is not permitted by > Law 19, and Law 19 says nothing about doubles made to attempt to > correct insufficient bids. Therefore, L35 doesn't apply here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 05:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAIEt808114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:14:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAIEmH08110 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:14:49 +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 fBAHe3m03680 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:41:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001b01c181a1$b9a4fd40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:38:52 -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." > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, > we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they > still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > > Already routine? Not where rulings are sensible. If a pair could do nothing to make up for what they had coming (+650), they should get that result no matter what they did subsequent to the infraction. If 6H should easily have been defeated 800, then there would have been no consequent damage for the NOS, and they would get the table result. Since both consequent and subsequent damage are taken into account for the OS, -650 for them. In this case there was consequent damage to the NOS, so L12C2 (not an alternative to L12C3, but a first step in the process) is applied to both sides. The NOS gets the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction, obviously +650, and the mirror result to the OS. Damage to the NOS is either a consequence of the infraction (use L12C for both sides) or merely subsequent (L12C for the OS only). I can't find anything official that says otherwise. 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 Dec 11 05:34:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAIUuG08128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:30:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAIUoH08123 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:30:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-192.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.192]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBAHgOs26025 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:42:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C14E11E.2040404@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:21:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nice one, Ton, but ... see below Kooijman, A. wrote: > Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given > because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held > responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you > when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell > about another case we had in my country. > > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, > we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they > still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > > Already routine? > > Before such things become routine, I would like to see how the principle applies to other methods of counting. Suppose it is a pairs tounament (non-Butler). I suppose +650 would be slightly above average. Let's say 58% so as to be able to see what the calculations are. With the infraction, the normal result becomes +100, presumably near a bottom, let's put it at 15%. With the eggregious error, the result is -1210, for an absolute bottom of 1%. That would mean the consequent damage was 43%, and the subsequent was 14%. So you award 58-14=44%. OK ? I can live with that. I would even formulate it as follows 100% of 4Sp+1 plus 100% of 6HX= minus 100% of 6HX-1 -- 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 Dec 11 05:34:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAIV1s08132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:31:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAIUtH08127 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:30:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-192.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.192]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBAHgMs26021 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:42:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C14DDD6.70102@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:07:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now maybe I have not fully understood the WBFLC stance on this, but ... David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > >> Suppose the bidding goes >> >> 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" >> >> The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. >>Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not >> > fair > >>[he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. >> >> All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some >>inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It >> > isn't > >>fair". >> > > No, no - this is perfectly OK, for nothing is going to happen to the 1C > bid (it isn't going to be cancelled), and L27A applies. > > But the original question (so far as I have understood it) seems to me > to concern a pass that followed a 1NT bid for which an inadmissible > double was substituted. This was the sequence of events: > > South 1D > West 1NT > North 1NT > Someone "You can't do that - it's insufficient" > North Double > East Pass > > Now, North's double is going to be cancelled (per L27B3). Per L35A, > East's pass is also going to be cancelled (because it was a call > subsequent to an inadmissible double). The auction reverts to North > (whose turn it is to call). He has already made a call (1NT), and East > (who has done nothing in respect of that call, since his pass has been > cancelled) now has the option to accept North's 1NT. > Is this double really inadmissible ? It does not seem to be so under L36, since that refers specifically to a double not permitted by L19. Indeed the insufficient bid cannot be corrected by a double, but there seems to me no reason why that means the double cannot be accepted. Since L36 does not apply, neither does L35. I still think the bidding simply goes on. By passing, the change of call has been accepted. Was that the issue the WBFLC tackled - I don't seem to recall such a significant change as adding "or L27B" to the L19 reference in L36. > In short, since East's pass followed North's double, it is cancelled, > and ceases to have any effect. In particular, it does not have the > effect of condoning North's 1NT. Not only is this "fair", it also > appears to me quite obvious. I see nothing in the WBFLC minute quoted by > Grattan that is at variance with this view. > > David Burn > London, England > > -- 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 Dec 11 05:34:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAIXV008138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:33:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAIXNH08134 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:33:24 +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 KAA11887; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:23:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:06:56 PST." <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:23:26 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here are my thoughts about this whole mess: There's doubt in my mind as to whether Law 27A applies. North made an insufficient 1NT bid; North then attempted to correct to a double; East passed. DWS is arguing that since East called, L27A applies, and the insufficient bid is accepted. David argues, correctly IMO, that a call is not really "over" another call. The second sentence of L27A simply says the insufficient bid is accepted "if that player calls", not "if that player makes a call over the insufficient bid". If the latter wording were in the Lawbook, it would be easier to argue that East was passing over the correction, not over the insufficient bid. But the Law simply says "if that player calls", and nobody can argue that East didn't call. However, L27A also has a first sentence: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO." In the actual case, I don't think East was exercising an option to accept LHO's insufficient bid---because East thought he was passing over the double, not over the insufficient bid. The term "option" implies intent, and certainly there was no intent on East's part. So what's the relation between the two sentences in L27A? There are two possibilities, it seems to me: (a) Either/or; i.e. the insufficient bid is accepted if LHO exercises an option to accept the bid, OR if LHO calls. (b) The second part gives just one of the mechanisms by which the first part can take place, i.e. (1) LHO has the option to treat the insufficient bid as legal; (2) one way of exercising that option is to call over it. [The other way is to call the TD, and when the TD tells you that accepting the bid is one of your options, you say that you're choosing that option.] I think (b) is probably the correct interpretation. This is just the way the language "sounds" to me. (If, on the other hand, the Law read this way: Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. Alternatively, it is accepted if that player calls. I've added the word "alternatively". If this is how L27A read, I'd consider (a) to be the clearly correct interpretation. Other words like "in addition" or "also" in the second sentence would also lead me to consider (a) to be correct.) In any case, with the actual language of L27A, I think one can go either way. Of course, there's this situation: West North East 2NT 1C 1D East, who is half asleep, bids 1D without realizing that 1C was insufficient. He then notices there was a problem, and calls the Director, saying he didn't intend to legalize the insufficient bid, and that L27A shouldn't apply because he didn't intend to exercise an "option" to accept an insufficient bid, since he didn't realize it was insufficient. I'd rule that 1C and 1D stand, though, because although East may not have been trying to accept an insufficient bid, he certainly thought 1C was legal, and by bidding over it he was definitely accepting it. This is substantially different from the original case, where East was clearly trying to call over the correction, not over the insufficient bid, and thus it's more clear that no "intent" was involved. So, contrary to what DWS says, I think it *does* matter which call East was trying to call over, because of the first sentence of L27A. There's another reason why I think L27A may not apply. According to the WBFLC ruling, when an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted, the premature correction is cancelled. So North's correction is cancelled, but East made a call subsequent to the cancelled call. What happens when a call is cancelled and there are subsequent calls in the auction? The Laws don't give a general answer to this question; in fact, most of the time when an illegal call is followed by another call, this means the illegal call is treated as legal and therefore is not cancelled. However, there are at least a couple cases where a call can be cancelled that has been followed by another call: (a) Law 35A and 35C, which says that all subsequent calls are also cancelled. (Note that I am not *applying* Law 35A to the original situation, since the double is not inadmissible; rather, I'm using it to derive a principle.) (b) Law 21B; in this case, a player who calls based on misinformation can change his call, and then if LHO has called, LHO can also change his call. The Law doesn't speak of calls being "cancelled" in this case, but as far as I can tell it amounts to the same thing. So there seems to precedent in the Laws that if a call is cancelled, subsequent calls are cancelled also. In fact, that seems to be the only sensible thing to do. So if we apply this to the original case, North's correction to a double is cancelled because of the WBFLC interpretation; East's subsequent pass is therefore cancelled also. Well, if East's pass is cancelled, would we still be able to say that East has called and has therefore accepted the insufficient bid (second sentence of L27A, if you don't accept my previous argument)? Or does the cancellation of East's pass also cancel his acceptance of the insufficient bid? I don't know; anybody else know? For these two reasons, I think there's enough ambiguity in the Laws that we may do the "common-sense" thing and say L27A doesn't apply. So how would I rule? North's double is cancelled; East's pass is ruled not to constitute acceptance of the insufficient bid, and is therefore also cancelled. I still rule that L27B3 applies, since North did attempt to substitute a double for an insufficient bid. Thus South is now barred for the auction, and there may be lead penalties. North must substitute a sufficient bid or pass, and East may now call whatever he likes. -- 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 Dec 11 05:38:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAIb4g08162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:37:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAIavH08158 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:36:58 +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 SAA10101 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:29:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:26:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 , Kooijman, A. writes > >Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given >because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held >responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you >when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell >about another case we had in my country. > >The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H >doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and >we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted >score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But >defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe >tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 >tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, >we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they >still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the >score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 >which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - >1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 >imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the >result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > >Already routine? > I have been ploughing a lone furrow in the UK to get this method adopted. Sadly it is not the case. In the UK a pair can cheat their way to a contract and because the non-offenders screw up against this contract they get lumbered with that filthy result. Meantime the non- offenders get their score adjusted to what we deem reasonable. So we have a pair of innocents being forced to take a result in a contract which the opponents weren't even allowed to play. It's mostly David Burn's doing, and competent that he is in his interpretation of the Law and its administration at AC, I think he's just got this one wrong. The damage payable by the NO's is clearly only the damage subsequent to the infraction, not the sum of the consequent and the subsequent damage. But what do I know, I'm just an egg cheers john > >ton > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 06:22:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAJLqB08190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:21:52 +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 fBAJLkH08186 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:21:46 +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 OAA18040 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA03653 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:14:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:14:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112101914.OAA03653@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > West North East > 2NT 1C 1D >... [The above] is substantially different from the > original case, where East was clearly trying to call over the > correction, not over the insufficient bid Indeed. I trust we are unanimous about the ruling in the sequence above: "East has bid 1D, South's turn to call." In the original case, *two* players are at fault for failing to call the TD: the one who made the premature "correction" and the one who "accepted" the correction by calling afterwards. I don't see why you wish to penalize just one of them. > According to the WBFLC ruling, when an insufficient bid is prematurely > substituted, the premature correction is cancelled. As Adam says, if a call is cancelled, it makes sense to cancel all subsequent calls. Otherwise, there is a "hole" in the auction, which can happen with calls out of rotation but isn't normal. However, I suppose one could read the laws as allowing a "hole" to exist, just as after a COOT. What I don't think you can do is allow the insufficient bidder to correct his call and then force the next player to repeat his call. Surely 21B1 applies if nothing else. (The insufficient bidder, by correcting his call without benefit of the TD, has misled his opponent about what call he was making. This is exactly the same ruling as after a L25A change of call.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 07:22:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAKK5G08226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:20:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBAKK0H08222 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:20:00 +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 MAA13883; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:12:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200112102012.MAA13883@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:14:35 EST." <200112101914.OAA03653@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:12:46 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > West North East > > 2NT 1C 1D > > >... [The above] is substantially different from the > > original case, where East was clearly trying to call over the > > correction, not over the insufficient bid > > Indeed. I trust we are unanimous about the ruling in the sequence > above: "East has bid 1D, South's turn to call." > > In the original case, *two* players are at fault for failing to call > the TD: the one who made the premature "correction" and the one who > "accepted" the correction by calling afterwards. I don't see why you > wish to penalize just one of them. Actually, the number of players who failed to call the TD is four, not two. :) I'm just trying to figure out how the Laws should be applied in this mess. In Law 35, for example, when someone calls over his RHO's inadmissible call, he forfeits the right to penalize; this is explicitly stated in the Laws. In the case we're dealing with, nothing like that is explicitly stated. Then again, this exact situation isn't really dealt with at all in the Laws; so perhaps it would be acceptable to rule that L11A applies here and remove the L27B3 penalty for substituting a double for an insufficient bid. In any case, we can certainly hit everyone at the table with L90. -- 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 Dec 11 07:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAKZwB08242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:35:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAKZpH08238 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:35:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-41-65.btinternet.com ([213.122.41.65] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16DUdt-0004M6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:55:05 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c181a3$aac87200$41297ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200112101639.IAA10346@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:54:06 -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 Adam wrote: > > Now, North's double is going to be cancelled (per L27B3). Per L35A, > > East's pass is also going to be cancelled (because it was a call > > subsequent to an inadmissible double). > > I don't think North's double is an "inadmissible" double. It's > disallowed by L27B3, of course; however, it seems clear from L35 that > an "inadmissible" double is defined as one that is not permitted by > Law 19, and Law 19 says nothing about doubles made to attempt to > correct insufficient bids. Therefore, L35 doesn't apply here. I think, on reflection, that Adam is right - I had red L35 as applying to any inadmissible double or redouble, but the words do appear to refer only to those not admitted by L19, rather than extending to those not admitted by L27B3. One could, of course, argue that the "last preceding bid" was North's own insufficient 1NT, which he may not of course double - that would bring Law 35 into the picture rather neatly, since it is obviously the one we want! (Grattan: when the drafting committee gets around to it, the words in L19 need to be changed slightly in this regard.) David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 08:43:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBALgsj08282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:42:54 +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 fBALgmH08278 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:42:48 +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 fBALZbm27903; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:35:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009501c181c2$709d9aa0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML]_Trick_12_claim Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:31:57 -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: "Tim West-meads" > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> > > >If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings > > >either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. > > > > Why not? There is nothing in the UI rules that makes adjudication > > dependent on the class of player. (Which player would that be, > > anyhow?) I may have to ask about facts, about methods, etc., but I > > don't have to ask anyone, "How good a bridge player are you?" > > I thought it was generally accepted that in UI rulings possible LAs were > judged on what a players *peers* might do, as is the case in the UK. There is no basis for that in the Laws. L16 doesn't use the words "peers." > I > don't see how one can consider a player's peers without making a > determination about the class of player. > And that can't be done either, so do neither when they are not specifically authorized by the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 08:55:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBALt8P08298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:55:08 +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 fBALt2H08294 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:55:03 +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 fBALlqm03901 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:47:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009901c181c4$24a8cd20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:46:31 -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 From: "Kooijman, A." > Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted (if I rememeber > this well). Before 1975, that is, when an insufficient bid could not be accepted "if either opponent draws attention to it." (1963 Laws) Evidently LHO could accept it by bidding on without comment. 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 Dec 11 09:29:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAMSuc08320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:28:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAMSoH08316 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:28:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBAMLXs22924 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:21:33 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:21:30 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/10/2001 23:21:32 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted > (if I rememeber > > this well). > > Sorry, Ton, I'm afraid either the above did not come out as you > intended or else your memory is as bad as mine. L27A was unchanged in > the 1997 Laws, and in 1987 there was only a trivial change in wording > having no effect that I can see. > > My memory says it was possible to accept an insufficient bid even > before 1975, but as noted above this may not be trustworthy. Of course it was possible to accept an insufficient bid, that has been the rule for years and still is. BUT: > Before 1997, a correction attempt of an insufficient bid before the > TD arrived could not be accepted. I guess that was what Ton meant. And that cannot possibly be correct according to my issue of the 1987 laws (In fact the "commentary" by Endicott and Hansen in 1992). I have not been able to locate in that book any text which prevents LHO from accepting a premature correction of an insufficient bid. The only applicable law seems to be 25B1 which clearly gives LHO this privilege, and which directs the director to Law27 if LHO does not condone the substituted call (only). With the 1997 laws the footnote was added in Law25B1, and this footnote seems to have removed the possibility for LHO to accept an attempted (premature) substitution for an insufficient bid (only). I have little problem with this change except that it seems a bit surprising. But I certainly have a problem if the change shall include the effect that when such an attempted premature correction is cancelled this cancellation shall not automatically include any call subsequent to the cancelled one. Grattan has written: The minute makes it clear that LHO is to have the opportunity of accepting the original call, for which purpose the auction is rolled back to that point. This is of course fully acceptable, but that is not what has repeatedly been claimed in these threads, and which has arosen most of the heated discussions. Do we need a specific law stating something like: When a call is cancelled (regardless for what reason), any call subequent to the cancelled call is also cancelled, and the auction resumes from the point of the (first) cancelled call. Or do we need a simplification of Law25B1 by removing the footnote again so that premature corrections to insuficcient calls are handled exactly the same way as any other premature corrections: LHO is first given the opportunity to accept the correction, and if not then the correction is cancelled and the auction rolled back. (For clarity: If LHO makes any call subsequent to the correction he is considered to having accepted it). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 09:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAMj7F08342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:45:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBAMj1H08338 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:45:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBAMbjf23878 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:37:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:37:42 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/10/2001 23:37:44 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: quote I think, on reflection, that Adam is right - I had red L35 as applying to any inadmissible double or redouble, but the words do appear to refer only to those not admitted by L19, rather than extending to those not admitted by L27B3. One could, of course, argue that the "last preceding bid" was North's own insufficient 1NT, which he may not of course double - that would bring Law 35 into the picture rather neatly, since it is obviously the one we want! (Grattan: when the drafting committee gets around to it, the words in L19 need to be changed slightly in this regard.) unquote But I don't think L19 needs any refinement, it already states not only "the last preceding bid" but also "that bid must have been made by an opponent" and "calls other than pass must not have intervened" Not much room for complications due to a player making two calls (the last of which is a double) for the application of L25 there. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 10:03:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBAN3Bd08360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:03:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBAN35H08355 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-29-55.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.29.55] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16DZIM-000DTU-00; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:53:11 +0000 Message-ID: <007701c181ce$00be4480$371de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20011208212900-R01010800-71c6ee4e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001c01c18159$fc1399e0$8820e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:56:30 -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: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 > > Anyway, this seems to have proved that I was > correct that the WBFLC had said that a premature > correction is cancelled. I do not understand > what difference it makes that it is not cancelled > prior to the TD's intervention. > +=+ Ah! I was being a little subtle. LHO's action if any is taken over the substituted call, not over the original call. The substituted call is not self-cancelling in the way that a penalty card is created by the act of exposure before the Director arrives. ~ 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 Dec 11 10:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBANKNN08381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:20:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBANKIH08377 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:20:18 +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 PAA16942; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:12:48 -0800 Message-Id: <200112102312.PAA16942@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:37:42 +0100." Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:13:04 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > David Burn wrote: > quote > I think, on reflection, that Adam is right - I had red L35 as applying > to any inadmissible double or redouble, but the words do appear to refer > only to those not admitted by L19, rather than extending to those not > admitted by L27B3. One could, of course, argue that the "last preceding > bid" was North's own insufficient 1NT, which he may not of course > double - that would bring Law 35 into the picture rather neatly, since > it is obviously the one we want! (Grattan: when the drafting committee > gets around to it, the words in L19 need to be changed slightly in this > regard.) > unquote > > But I don't think L19 needs any refinement, it already states not only > "the last preceding bid" but also "that bid must have been made by an > opponent" and "calls other than pass must not have intervened" Let me see if I understand you: West bids 1NT. North bids 1NT and then attempts to change the call to a double. You're saying that this is inadmissible because it violates L19, because L19 says "calls other than pass must not have intervened", and North's 1NT has intervened between West's 1NT and the double. Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, then if my RHO bids 1S, and my LHO bids 2C out of turn, and I don't accept it, then I'm not allowed to double 1S, because a call other than pass has intervened between 1S and the double. Surely the "calls other than pass must not have intervened" cannot apply to cancelled calls. -- 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 Dec 11 11:46:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB0jKM08453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:45:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBB0jFH08449 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:45:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-253.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.253] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16Db1n-0003ve-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:44:12 +1300 Message-ID: <003801c181dc$43b973a0$fd6837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <3C1325F2.23930.4DDB0E@localhost> <002801c18121$ddb7d200$8e6837d2@oemcomputer> <000b01c1812a$409990e0$2308ff3e@jones1> <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:39:14 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:28 PM Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > In article <000a01c1813b$f5e71420$ae6837d2@oemcomputer>, Ray Crowe > writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Anne Jones" > >To: "blml" > >Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:25 PM > >Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > > > > > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Ray Crowe" > >> To: > >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:24 AM > >> Subject: Re: interpretation by WBF-LC (was Re: [BLML] Law 27B3) > >> > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > My first post. I am from New Zealand, and our daughter, Mary, has > >> landed > >> > home from university for the weekend, with a new kitten which is named > >> Mo. > >> > (t'was our daughter's nickname at school). > >> > > >> > I have enjoyed reading BLML, and am much wiser and better informed > >> than I > >> > was 12 months ago. Still a long way to go though :) > >> > > >> Welcome Ray :-) David will I am sure register Mo on the BLML cats list. > >> Do you not have a doggy? > >> Anne > > > >Yes, I have a very good sheepdog - a black and tan Collie. Her name is Pip. > > > >(I also farm approx. 2000 sheep----- I have tried counting them > >1,2,3,4,5,6,--yawn ---zzzzzzzzz, sorry, just a silly kiwi joke :) > > > Their names please? I think Anne should keep the sheep list, she's > Welsh. cheers john SHEEP with names??? To me, they are all the same. (they've been cloning for years :). So how about "Dolly" That should start and finish Anne's list in one hit. Ray ======================================================================== > >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 12:18:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB1ILh08478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:18:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail18.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail18.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.145]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBB1IGH08474 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:18:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail18.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011211011104.YYQC8530.femail18.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:11:04 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011210200925.008652f0@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: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:09:25 -0500 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:59 PM 12/10/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H >doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and >we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted >score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But >defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe >tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 >tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, >we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they >still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the >score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 >which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - >1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 >imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the >result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > >Already routine? This is exactly right, and I have supported this approach before on BLML. The NOS is entitled to compensation for the loss they would have suffered even with reasonable play, and that is the 11 IMPs difference between a push at +650 and the +100 they should have had. The damage from +100 to -1210 is self-inflicted. Similarly, if this had been BAM, the board would be a push. The NOS would have pushed without the infraction, and lost any chance to push it as a direct result of the infraction, so what they did after the infraction would be irrelevant. And at matchpoints, the adjustment would need to be made in matchpoints; if +650 were 70%, +100 were 40%, and -1210 were zero, then the damage was 30% and thus the NOS should get 30%. I'm not sure what to do about the OS in such cases, though. The same adjustment for the OS would be reasonable, but you could also argue that the OS should never do better than they would have if they had followed the rules. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 12:26:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB1QHF08500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB1Q8H08486 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:09 +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 16DbZP-0003Ni-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:18:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:13:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <3C14AEFB.4020105@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C14AEFB.4020105@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 >I had not really been paying attention to this thread, but >when David issues a challenge, I cannot resist. > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Kooijman, A. writes >> >>>>>>West north east south >>>>>> pass 1 D >>>>>>1 NT 1 NT >>>>>> double pass >>>>>>**************************************************************** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>When attention is drawn to the insufficient bid, north >>>>>>> >>>>substitutes a >>>> >>>>>>>double. >>>>>>>East passes and thereupon the TD is summoned. >>>>>>> >>> >>>David Stevenson: >>> >>> >>>>>> L27A gives East the right to accept the insufficient bid >>>>>> >>>>[1NT]. This >>>> >>>>>>he has done by passing. So the auction continues from >>>>>> >>>>North's 1NT and >>>> >>>>>>East's pass. >>>>>> >>>>>I would argue that this is not fair to East, who intended >>>>> >>>>the pass in a >>>> >>>>>different situation. >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> That will teach south to ignore the Laws of bridge, won't it? >>>> >>>> I think you should follow the Laws and not worry about players who >>>>cannot be bothered to call the TD after an infraction. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>We all do David: having the opinion that we should follow the Laws. That >>>probably is why there is some doubt about your approach. I join them. Try >>>procedural penalties instead. >>> >> >> I am not ignoring the Laws of bridge so as to punish a player for not >> calling the TD. But people are basically saying that we should cancel a >> call because it is not fair otherwise with no reference to a Law. Fine, >> show me a Law, show me I am wrong. But saying I am wrong because a >> player who should have called the TD did not is insufficient. >> >> Suppose the bidding goes >> >> 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" >> >> The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. >> Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not fair >> [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. >> >> All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some >> inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It isn't >> fair". >> >> > >Well David, how about L25B1. > >You see David, your example and the original are not the >same. In your example, the 1D condones the insufficient >call. But in the original, there were two infractions: an >insufficient call, and an illegal change of call. Both can >be condoned, and both are condoned by the next player calling. > >Now of course, the Laws do not say which of the infractions >is the one that is condoned. And they should not. since >both can be condoned, the player doing the condoning can >choose which. And we, as director, should not force him to >condone the one when he wishes to condone the other. >(OK, this may be under discussion, but please in a different >thread). > >So the people saying "it's not fair" may not have given a >reference, but I believe I have. And indeed, it is not fair. > >OK, David ? No, good try, and the first actual answer, but not correct, I fear. The WBFLC said that the illegal change of call is cancelled, so it cannot be condoned. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 12:26:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB1QNY08501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:23 +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 fBB1QBH08491 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:11 +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 16DbZP-0005ZR-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:04:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML]_Trick_12_claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 07:06 AM 12/8/01, twm wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> > I want guidelines telling me how I am to determine, when ruling on a >> > claim made by a total stranger, what "the class of player involved" >> > is! If I can't figure out what it is, it's rather unhelpful to >> tell me >> > that I must nevertheless base my ruling on it. >> >>If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings >>either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. > >Why not? There is nothing in the UI rules that makes adjudication >dependent on the class of player. (Which player would that be, >anyhow?) I may have to ask about facts, about methods, etc., but I >don't have to ask anyone, "How good a bridge player are you?" The UI rules include LAs. Surely the definition of an LA under any jurisdiction is whether a sufficient number of a player's peers would consider and/or find the action? Thus the UI rules do include the class of player since otherwise you cannot tell who his peers are. Of course you do not ask anyone "How good a player are you?" ! -- 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 Dec 11 12:26:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB1QOI08502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB1QBH08490 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:26:11 +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 16DbZP-0005ZQ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:16:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Suppose the bidding goes >> >> 2NT 1C 1D "Director!" >> >> The TD rules that the 1D stands because that is what the Laws say. >> Now, if the 1D bidder wants to take his bid back because it is not >fair >> [he did not see the 2NT!] we do not let him. >> >> All I ask is that one person who thinks I am wrong will give some >> inkling, some Law, that suggests I am wrong rather than saying "It >isn't >> fair". > >No, no - this is perfectly OK, for nothing is going to happen to the 1C >bid (it isn't going to be cancelled), and L27A applies. > >But the original question (so far as I have understood it) seems to me >to concern a pass that followed a 1NT bid for which an inadmissible >double was substituted. This was the sequence of events: > >South 1D >West 1NT >North 1NT >Someone "You can't do that - it's insufficient" >North Double >East Pass > >Now, North's double is going to be cancelled (per L27B3). Per L35A, >East's pass is also going to be cancelled (because it was a call >subsequent to an inadmissible double). The auction reverts to North >(whose turn it is to call). He has already made a call (1NT), and East >(who has done nothing in respect of that call, since his pass has been >cancelled) now has the option to accept North's 1NT. > >In short, since East's pass followed North's double, it is cancelled, >and ceases to have any effect. In particular, it does not have the >effect of condoning North's 1NT. Not only is this "fair", it also >appears to me quite obvious. I see nothing in the WBFLC minute quoted by >Grattan that is at variance with this view. I do not think this works because the double, while illegal, is not inadmissible. -- 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 Dec 11 13:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB2q7k09142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:52:07 +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 fBB2prH09126 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:51:54 +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 16DcuL-000CwM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:44:41 +0000 Message-ID: <4V2kngDN6WF8EwHo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:25:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes > >Here are my thoughts about this whole mess: I shall not copy the whole of Adam's statement, but I am pleased that he and others are now actually trying to answer the question in a sensible way. However, one problem I am not sure they have answered is whether there is a legal basis for cancelling the call after the insufficient bid. Is it sufficient to say it seems obvious, as Ton says? Is it sufficient to say that the WBFLC minute meant this, even though it does not say so, as Grattan says? Is it enough that we just look at comparable cases, as Adam does - and if we do the evidence is mixed anyway. One more point: let us forget the double for a moment and consider the following: W N E 1NT 1H [Whoops!] 2D 2H Now, some of you have said that 2S is "over" 2D which I consider an unwarranted assumption, unsupported by Law. Suppose you take East away from the table and ask him why he bid 2H. "I was cue-bidding the opponent's suit to show a good hand," he says. Do you still claim this is "over" 2D? Before anyone quotes me wrongly, I shall let you know the actual things I am sure of: [1] We need to read the Law book not make our rulings up from basic instinct [2] 2H is a call, not a call over something [3] 2D is cancelled per WBFLC minute I am also surprised at the reason given by Grattan for the WBFLC minute. My understanding is that it came from a slightly different problem, but I never heard of anyone ignoring L27A, and I do not believe that is was the reason for the minute. Furthermore Grattan said the minute implied that LHO's call thereafter was cancelled: but, if so, why did the minute not say so? -- 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 Dec 11 13:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB2q9v09144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:52:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB2pvH09135 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:51:58 +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 16DcuR-000CwL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: <5VhkXFERCXF8EwXS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:33:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article >, Kooijman, A. writes >> >>Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given >>because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held >>responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you >>when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell >>about another case we had in my country. >> >>The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H >>doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and >>we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted >>score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But >>defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe >>tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 >>tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, >>we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they >>still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the >>score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 >>which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - >>1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 >>imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the >>result on the board for them: - 7 imps. >> >>Already routine? >> >I have been ploughing a lone furrow in the UK to get this method >adopted. Sadly it is not the case. In the UK a pair can cheat their way >to a contract and because the non-offenders screw up against this >contract they get lumbered with that filthy result. Meantime the non- >offenders get their score adjusted to what we deem reasonable. > >So we have a pair of innocents being forced to take a result in a >contract which the opponents weren't even allowed to play. Rubbish. They should not have tried for a double shot - and if they are a pair of innocents, they would not have. >It's mostly David Burn's doing, and competent that he is in his >interpretation of the Law and its administration at AC, I think he's >just got this one wrong. The damage payable by the NO's is clearly only >the damage subsequent to the infraction, not the sum of the consequent >and the subsequent damage. It is not mostly David Burn's doing. It also involves the other people who are 100% in agreement, like myself. -- 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 Dec 11 13:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB2qC909145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:52:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB2psH09127 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:51:54 +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 16DcuL-000CwO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:44:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7lMkL6Dm$WF8EwlJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:31:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML]_Trick_12_claim References: <009501c181c2$709d9aa0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009501c181c2$709d9aa0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011210080938.00ac2aa0@127.0.0.1> > >> > >If you can't judge the class of player then you can't make UI rulings >> > >either. These occur, IME, far more often than dubious claims. >> > >> > Why not? There is nothing in the UI rules that makes adjudication >> > dependent on the class of player. (Which player would that be, >> > anyhow?) I may have to ask about facts, about methods, etc., but I >> > don't have to ask anyone, "How good a bridge player are you?" >> >> I thought it was generally accepted that in UI rulings possible LAs were >> judged on what a players *peers* might do, as is the case in the UK. > >There is no basis for that in the Laws. L16 doesn't use the words "peers." So what? The interpretation of LAs by the ACBL and others does. -- 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 Dec 11 13:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB2q8X09143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:52:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB2prH09125 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:51:54 +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 16DcuL-000CwN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:44:41 +0000 Message-ID: <815lfvDz9WF8EwlZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:29:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <200112101914.OAA03653@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112101914.OAA03653@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: Adam Beneschan >> West North East >> 2NT 1C 1D > >>... [The above] is substantially different from the >> original case, where East was clearly trying to call over the >> correction, not over the insufficient bid > >Indeed. I trust we are unanimous about the ruling in the sequence >above: "East has bid 1D, South's turn to call." > >In the original case, *two* players are at fault for failing to call >the TD: the one who made the premature "correction" and the one who >"accepted" the correction by calling afterwards. I don't see why you >wish to penalize just one of them. If the you referred to is me, what I want to do is follow the Laws, rather than rely on other means of deciding this type of matter. >> According to the WBFLC ruling, when an insufficient bid is prematurely >> substituted, the premature correction is cancelled. >As Adam says, if a call is cancelled, it makes sense to cancel all >subsequent calls. Otherwise, there is a "hole" in the auction, which >can happen with calls out of rotation but isn't normal. However, I >suppose one could read the laws as allowing a "hole" to exist, just as >after a COOT. What I don't think you can do is allow the insufficient >bidder to correct his call and then force the next player to repeat his >call. Surely 21B1 applies if nothing else. (The insufficient bidder, >by correcting his call without benefit of the TD, has misled his >opponent about what call he was making. This is exactly the same >ruling as after a L25A change of call.) About time too! After thirty posts or so, finally a Law number to support the contention of cancelling the call rather than Basic Instinct! We'll make a TD out of you yet, Steve. :)) I am not sure I believe this answer, but it is a step in the right direction. -- 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 Dec 11 14:12:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB3CAa12097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:12:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBB3C3H12074 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:12:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-138-66.btinternet.com ([213.122.138.66] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16DdDq-0007dL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:04:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c181f0$723514a0$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001101c1817c$e89214a0$2e697ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:03:43 -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 DWS wrote: > I do not think this works because the double, while illegal, is not > inadmissible. I agree with you, as I have already said while apologising for nonsense that I wrote in an earlier message. But some of our German readers might call to mind the words of one of their great comic poets Christian Morgenstern (and believe me, it is very difficult indeed to write funny poetry in German): "Weil", entschliess er, messerscharf, "Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf!" For the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in, this was translated by an admirer of Professor Palmstrom whose name I cannot recall (look it up, it's well worth the trip) as: "For", he exclaimed triumphantly, "What's not permitted cannot be!" which seems to be the last word on at least one of the questions that have so plagued us on this list. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 14:40:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB3cl114568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:38:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBB3cfH14564 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:38:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-138-66.btinternet.com ([213.122.138.66] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Dddf-0007PE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:31:28 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c181f4$2ca070c0$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20011210200925.008652f0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:30:24 -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 David G wrote: > I'm not sure what to do about the OS in such cases, though. The same > adjustment for the OS would be reasonable, but you could also argue that > the OS should never do better than they would have if they had followed the > rules. Oh, that's all right, The OS get -650, and everybody gets an awful score, which is what they deserve (the OS for cheating, the NOS for misdefending). This has been routine in England for at least thirteen years, and is known as a "Burn ruling" ever since I gave one pair -670 for letting through three clubs doubled to which the opponents had cheated their way, while giving the cheats -200 for playing in two hearts. Both of these scores represented a bottom in terms of matchpoints, all of which seemed perfectly equitable to me (but you must remember that I was younger then). Suppose I had been older, and inclined to give both pairs a top. Would I then have decreed that the total number of match points available on this board was more than 100%? No, I would not. I might have been crazy, but I would not have been completely stupid. And yet, it seems to be the case that rulings are occasionally given as a result of which teams share 32 VPs instead of 30. Perhaps another thread should be started about this... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 16:43:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB5gUW29076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:42:30 +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 fBB5gOH29072 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:42:25 +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 fBB5ZDm23649 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:35:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f301c18204$be8ee380$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20011210200925.008652f0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> <001901c181f4$2ca070c0$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:24:59 -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: "David Burn" > > Oh, that's all right, The OS get -650, and everybody gets an awful > score, which is what they deserve (the OS for cheating, the NOS for > misdefending). This has been routine in England for at least thirteen > years, and is known as a "Burn ruling" ever since I gave one pair -670 > for letting through three clubs doubled to which the opponents had > cheated their way, while giving the cheats -200 for playing in two > hearts. Both of these scores represented a bottom in terms of > matchpoints, all of which seemed perfectly equitable to me (but you must > remember that I was younger then). -200 for *defending* two hearts making five, I assume in what follows, and let us also asssume that 3C should easily have been beaten two tricks, +500 for the NOS. The actual facts aren't important. The ruling *was* perfectly equitable, and in accordance with the Laws. The NOS wasn't damaged by the infraction, as they were handed a great result on a platter because of it. They dumped the platter on the floor, -670, so the result stands. When an infraction doesn't directly damage the NOS, no L12C for them. The OS get L12C, of course, -200. Their score benefited from the infraction, which is damage as defined by the WBFLC, and L12C takes that benefit away. No, they don't get -500. What amazes me is that people don't seem to recognize the difference between this case and cases in which the NOS has no easy way to avoid the damage. If that had been true in this case, a double difficult to find perhaps, then +200 to them from L12C, which has no qualifications regarding merit of the NOS. To give them -110 because they defended badly would be ridiculous. This principle is an old one, although it had to be restated by Edgar Kaplan when it was not being recognized in some quarters. Evidently it needs repeating. 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 Dec 11 19:28:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB8Qj102172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:26:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBB8QbH02131 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:26:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-58-150.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.58.150] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Di8K-000O3z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:19:25 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c1821c$ba829620$963ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> <4V2kngDN6WF8EwHo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:19:15 -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: Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 > Is it sufficient to say that the WBFLC minute meant > this, even though it does not say so, as Grattan says? > +=+ Since you used the minute as your authority for the cancellation of the substitute call you must take the whole minute and not just a selected part of it. It requires the auction to be restarted from the original bid, with fresh action by the insufficient bidder if the original bid is not accepted. Even if that action repeats the first substitution it is still new action. +=+ > > I am also surprised at the reason given by Grattan > for the WBFLC minute. My understanding is that it > came from a slightly different problem, but I never > heard of anyone ignoring L27A, and I do not believe > that is was the reason for the minute. > +=+ If you know better than I what was before the committee, David, and what was known about the application of the footnote, who am I to argue? However, what you 'never heard' is down to inexperience. ~ 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 Dec 11 20:44:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBB9hNa01435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:43:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBB9hGH01406 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:43:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBB9Zx008327 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:35:59 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 - roundup? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:35:57 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/11/2001 10:35:58 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan said: > Is it sufficient to say that the WBFLC minute meant > this, even though it does not say so, as Grattan says? > +=+ Since you used the minute as your authority for the cancellation of the substitute call you must take the whole minute and not just a selected part of it. It requires the auction to be restarted from the original bid, with fresh action by the insufficient bidder if the original bid is not accepted. Even if that action repeats the first substitution it is still new action. +=+ > So to cross the o's and dot the i's: What you confirm Grattan is that whenever the director have cancelled a premature attempt to correct an insufficient bid proceeding directly to Law27 as instructed by the footnote in Law25B1, he shall at the same time have cancelled all (if any) calls that have been made subsequent to the premature correction? Which of course means that the pass by East in the disputed sequence cannot be taken as an acceptance of the original insufficient bid, it must be cancelled together with the premature correction and we start over with the insufficient bid by North giving East all his options as prescribed in Law27? I think this settles the case in a way acceptable to most if not all of us. (That East may be liable to some reaction for violating Law9B2 or Law11A is, I consider, a completely different matter) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 22:35:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBBZ5U13903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:35:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBBBYxH13884 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:34:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-186-223.btinternet.com ([213.122.186.223] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Dl4b-0006Z1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:27:45 +0000 Message-ID: <00e601c18236$b1789880$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20011210200925.008652f0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> <001901c181f4$2ca070c0$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> <00f301c18204$be8ee380$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:26:34 -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 Marvin wrote: > -200 for *defending* two hearts making five, I assume in what follows, and > let us also asssume that 3C should easily have been beaten two tricks, +500 > for the NOS. The actual facts aren't important. No - the cheats had removed themselves from 2H, which was going one down doubled for a bottom, into 3C which ought to have gone two down doubled for a bottom, but was let through by ridiculous defence. Thus the cheats' score was adjusted to 2H doubled down one, the non-cheats' score remained at 3C doubled making the other way. Both of these results turned out to be worth exactly 0.00 match points. Of course, we had to come to some decision as to whether the non-cheats, who had let 3C doubled make, would also have let 2H doubled make at least some of the time. And here lay something of an anomaly - for the purposes of determining the cheats' score, we were constrained to find that it was "not at all likely" that the non-cheats would have allowed 2H doubled to make, even though we had just seen what they had done to 3C. You see, the non-cheats had to be treated for the purposes of determining the cheats' hypothetical score as though they were genius defenders, despite obviously being complete idiots. "Class of player", anyone? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 22:57:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBBvTw15767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:57:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBBBvNH15763 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:57:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-4-225.5800-1.access.uk.worldonline.com ([62.64.131.225] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16DlQG-0007WH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:50:09 +0000 Message-ID: <003001c18239$c432e0e0$e183403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> <4V2kngDN6WF8EwHo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:47:26 -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: 11 December 2001 02:25 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 > > I am also surprised at the reason given by > Grattan for the WBFLC minute. My understanding > is that it came from a slightly different problem, but > I never heard of anyone ignoring L27A, and I do not > believe that is was the reason for the minute. > +=+ Disbelief in my accounts of history tends to produce a miffed reaction. Perhaps I should be a little more helpful over David's unfamiliarity with what happened before his time. My first encounter with a footnote to Law 25B was when I saw the first draft of the proposed 1997 Laws. It showed that a footnote had appeared in 'The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (Revised 1990)' - an ACBL publication of which I knew nothing.. No footnote had been agreed by the WBF. It was proposed to introduce this ACBL creation into the 1997 Code. The footnote read: "When the original bid was insufficient apply Law 27B". I initiated a vigorous discussion about the right of LHO to accept the original insufficient bid. Before the 1997 Laws were settled it was agreed that for the 1997 Laws the footnote would refer to Law 27, not to Law 27B. In the first ACBL printing of the 1997 Laws no footnote at all appeared in reference to this matter. The ACBL law books tend to pop up in all sorts of places and later it came to my attention that there were still directors in odd corners of the world (and of North America) who were following the 1990 advice. So I ensured that the WBFLC agenda would set the record straight. Peace be with you. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ===================================== Footnote: I shall be 'off the air' - physically absent - until Thursday evening. ===================================== -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 11 23:56:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBCtiv25895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:55:44 +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-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 fBBCtbH25867 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-170-4.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.170.4]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBBCmMJ24617 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:48:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C15F8C6.8070109@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:15:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > Here are my thoughts about this whole mess: > and here are mine. Please direct me to the WBFLC interpretation that says that my reasoning is wrong. A player has made two calls, one of which is insufficient. IMO, the first thing that the director needs to do is read L25 and decide whether L25A applies or not. If it doesn't, he needs to read L25B. Then we see that the substitute call can be condoned. it would seem very odd to me that the WBFLC would stipulate that this cannot be done if the first call is illegal, since the laws then go on to say: 25B2 - if not condoned then, a) if illegal - apply penalties; b) if legal ... IMO, and I am not in much doubt here, the TD should give LHO the chance to accept the change of call. I know, we have discussed this when the substitution is a double, but IMHO L25B1 is clear. Now in stead, we have a unilateral action by LHO. He tells the TD that he was fully aware of the change (it would be something else if he says he passed over the insufficient bid, wishing to condone that one) and that he bid ov er the changed call. Why should the TD not simply apply L25B1? "Goodbye gentleman, thank you for calling me, please proceed". -- 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 Dec 12 00:55:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBDsno27009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:54:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBBDshH27005 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:54:44 +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 16DnFk-0006js-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:01:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: <200112101706.JAA10824@mailhub.irvine.com> <200112101823.KAA11887@mailhub.irvine.com> <4V2kngDN6WF8EwHo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004d01c1821c$ba829620$963ae150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004d01c1821c$ba829620$963ae150@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" >> Is it sufficient to say that the WBFLC minute meant >> this, even though it does not say so, as Grattan says? >> >+=+ Since you used the minute as your authority for >the cancellation of the substitute call you must take >the whole minute and not just a selected part of it. >It requires the auction to be restarted from the >original bid, with fresh action by the insufficient >bidder if the original bid is not accepted. Even >if that action repeats the first substitution it is >still new action. +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------- +=+ I found the minute. 24th August 1998 in Lille. It reads: << " The committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. It was held that where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B.">> -------------------------------------------------------------- That is the minute. It says clearly and unambiguously that the premature correction is cancelled. It says that the original insufficient bid may be accepted. It does not say that further calls are to be cancelled. It may be seen as an inference from this minute but if so it would have been far better if it had said so. Alternatively, if a Law makes it clear that further calls are to be cancelled that would suffice. The simplest solution to a problem here would be if someone demonstrates how a Law covers it. At last one or two people are trying to do that, though I am not sure we have found the solution yet. An alternative simple solution is if the WBFLC have said something will be done. They did so about the premature correction: regrettably they did not do so about further calls. ============= >> I am also surprised at the reason given by Grattan >> for the WBFLC minute. My understanding is that it >> came from a slightly different problem, but I never >> heard of anyone ignoring L27A, and I do not believe >> that is was the reason for the minute. >+=+ If you know better than I what was before the >committee, David, and what was known about the >application of the footnote, who am I to argue? A problem arose that was discussed at the EBU L&EC, at the EBU Panel TD training weekend and here on BLML concerning whether 1D could be accepted in the following sequence: 1S 1C [Whoops!] 1D [Uh-oh!] X This was based in part on the assertion in the laws that *any* insufficient bid may be accepted by the next player. Eventually, the EBU came to a conclusion, though the discussion here showed that the Dutch [for example] had come to a different conclusion. We were told that the WBFLC would discuss it. We then got a WBFLC discussion, and a minute that showed that 1D could not be accepted. Now, if you are telling me, Grattan, that despite promising to put this to the WBFLC, you actually put a different case to them which by coincidence happens to cover the one you promised to put to them, and that we discussed, then I believe you, Grattan. But I do not think it unreasonable that I have assumed that you put the case to them that [a] you said you would and [b] was known to be causing difficulties in various NCBOs. > However, what you 'never heard' is down to >inexperience. Of course that must be 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 Dec 12 04:23:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBHN0927131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 04:23:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBBHMtH27127 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 04:22:55 +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 fBBHFgB23675 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:15:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003401c18267$521a9240$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20011210200925.008652f0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> <001901c181f4$2ca070c0$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> <00f301c18204$be8ee380$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c18236$b1789880$428a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:08:25 -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: "David Burn" < > Marvin wrote: > > > -200 for *defending* two hearts making five, I assume in what follows, > and > > let us also asssume that 3C should easily have been beaten two tricks, > +500 > > for the NOS. The actual facts aren't important. > > No - the cheats had removed themselves from 2H, which was going one down > doubled for a bottom, into 3C which ought to have gone two down doubled > for a bottom, but was let through by ridiculous defence. Thus the > cheats' score was adjusted to 2H doubled down one, the non-cheats' score > remained at 3C doubled making the other way. Both of these results > turned out to be worth exactly 0.00 match points. > > Of course, we had to come to some decision as to whether the non-cheats, > who had let 3C doubled make, would also have let 2H doubled make at > least some of the time. And here lay something of an anomaly - for the > purposes of determining the cheats' score, we were constrained to find > that it was "not at all likely" that the non-cheats would have allowed > 2H doubled to make, even though we had just seen what they had done to > 3C. You see, the non-cheats had to be treated for the purposes of > determining the cheats' hypothetical score as though they were genius > defenders, despite obviously being complete idiots. "Class of player", > anyone? > Impeccable ruling, rightfully ignoring the "class of player" mantra. I just wanted to make the point that if the NOS could not have obtained their +200 by rational actions against 3C, then they would have an adjustment coming no matter how irrational their defense. For instance, if they had not doubled 3C and doubling was not clear, their score should be adjusted in spite of an irrational defense that lets 3C make instead of defeating it one trick. 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 Dec 12 07:48:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBKm6112620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:48:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBBKm0H12616 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:48:00 +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 HAA17103 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:50:56 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:26:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity first; Legality second To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:37:36 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/12/2001 07:31:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread "Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions", I wrote: [snip] >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. [snip] The AC wanted to penalise the inexperienced pair, but without benefiting the experienced pair. When told by the TD that their proposed split score was illegal, the AC gave a non-split score. However, suddenly a PP appeared out of nowhere on the inexperienced pair. This was despite the TD and CTD, plus the first ruling of the AC, deciding that a PP was not necessary. I reiterate my quote from Jeff Rubens (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] 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 Dec 12 09:48:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBMm1u09495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:48:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBBMlsH09482 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:47:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 999 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2001 22:40:41 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.387122 secs); 11 Dec 2001 22:40:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.91) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 11 Dec 2001 22:40:39 -0000 Message-ID: <02d901c18343$cff87a60$7618b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:32:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:59 AM Subject: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given > because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held > responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you > when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell > about another case we had in my country. > > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, > we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they > still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > > Already routine? > > > ton > In the present case: 1.Likely result without hesitation: 650 - 650 = 0 => 0 Imps 2.Result without hesitation with egregiuous error 620 - 650 = -30 => -1 Imp 3.Likely result after hestitation: 100 - 650 = -550 => -11 Imps 4.Actual result after hesitation: -1210 - 650 = -1860 => - 18 Imps Law 16A2 states "...The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." This law merely states that the infraction has resulted in damage. It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of damage that may result: 1. as in c. above the NOS score 100 instead of 650 through absolutely no fault of their own; 2. as in d. above (compared with b. above). The NOS egregiuous error cost them 7 imps whereas a similar error in their safe major game would have only cost 1 imp. The opponent's infraction upped the ante. I can't see any reasonable justification for making the NOS pay 7 imps when without the infraction they would only be playing for 1 imp. IMO this is clearly 'resultant damage' Having come to the conclusion that this is resultant damage the director is constrained by L12C2 to award: 1. "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" to the NOS - in almost all cases 650 and 0 Imps as I do not necessarily believe that an error in one contract (and circumstance) means that an error in an alternative contract was "likely"; 2. "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" to the OS - in most cases -650 but reasonably often a score of -680 or -710 if an inferior lead or misdefense etc could result in those scores. As the laws are currently written I do not see how, in law, a score of -18 imps, -11 imps, -7 imps or even -1 imp can be assigned to a NOS who were booked for a push before the infraction. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 09:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBMmvv09708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:48:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBBMmoH09676 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:48:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBBMfV621012 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:41:31 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:41:28 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/11/2001 23:41:30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael commented: > Please direct me to the WBFLC interpretation that says that > my reasoning is wrong. > A player has made two calls, one of which is insufficient. for consistency with the thread I assume you mean the first. > IMO, the first thing that the director needs to do is read > L25 and decide whether L25A applies or not. If it doesn't, > he needs to read L25B. Then we see that the substitute call > can be condoned. Yes it can except when the original call was an insufficient bid. In that case he is directed straight to L27 by the footnote in L25B1. The remainder of L25B1 does not apply, nor does any part of L25B2. The discussion in this thread has now made it clear that all calls subsequent to the original insufficient bid shall be cancelled before proceeding with L27 where LHO is first given the option of accepting the original insufficient bid just as if there had been no call at all following this bid. LHO cannot be deemed to having accepted the insufficient bid by any call he might have made after the offender made his second call (attempting to prematurely correct his insufficient bid). (A call by LHO after the insufficient bid but before the offender made his premature attempt to correct his insufficient bid must of course be a different matter). > it would seem very odd to me that the > WBFLC would stipulate that this cannot be done if the first > call is illegal, since the laws then go on to say: > 25B2 - if not condoned then, a) if illegal - apply > penalties; b) if legal ... And they haven't. What they have done is to exclude L25B when the first call was illegal because it was an insufficient bid. > IMO, and I am not in much doubt here, the TD should give LHO > the chance to accept the change of call. I know, we have > discussed this when the substitution is a double, but IMHO > L25B1 is clear. I might agree, and I might not agree. This is a political question. Assuming WBFLC has seriously considered the law before making the exact text I do not feel in a position where I can argue the result, because with the current interpretation it can be applied without problems, and apparently without being unfair to either side (which was definitely not the case with the interpretation that I believe started this thread). > Now in stead, we have a unilateral action by LHO. He tells > the TD that he was fully aware of the change (it would be > something else if he says he passed over the insufficient > bid, wishing to condone that one) and that he bid ov er the > changed call. LHO has to be a bit careful about what he says, or he might find himself in serious conflict with Law 9 and/or Law 11. > Why should the TD not simply apply L25B1? Because WBFLC has decided that a premature correction of an insufficient bid cannot be forced to stand against the wish of the offender after he has heard the available alternatives and consequences. If LHO eventually does not condone the insufficient bid the offender is of course free to repeat his premature correction, but having been told the subsequent penalty to his partner he may very well want to select another correction instead. Note that when LHO condones the premature correction according to L25B1 there is no penalty on offender, and I assume WBFLC has found this to be undesirable when the offence is an insufficient bid that is prematurely corrected by the offender. I do not know, but this could be a fair reason for the footnote. > "Goodbye gentleman, thank you for calling me, please proceed". "Wouldn't that be lovely!" regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 10:59:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBBNvnO23511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:57:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep15-int.chello.nl (amsfep15-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBBNvhH23507 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:57:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from anton-3fnp4arvg ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep15-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20011211235024.QJNS1261.amsfep15-int.chello.nl@anton-3fnp4arvg> for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:50:24 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011212005105.00ff5080@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, 12 Dec 2001 00:51:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk hi all, this hand was from the competition in our district w /EW W N E S P P 1H 2S 3H P 4H ...P P 4S North had: s A4 h 1043 d J97 c AJ732 Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? regards, anton PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about bidding 4S!!!! (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and was ready to sacrifice. 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 Wed Dec 12 11:01:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC00oJ23530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:00:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBC00iH23526 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:00:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16DwiG-000IFE-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:53:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:52:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 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 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >Yes it can except when the original call was an insufficient >bid. In that case he is directed straight to L27 by the >footnote in L25B1. The remainder of L25B1 does not apply, >nor does any part of L25B2. The discussion in this thread has >now made it clear that all calls subsequent to the original >insufficient bid shall be cancelled before proceeding with L27 >where LHO is first given the option of accepting the original >insufficient bid just as if there had been no call at all >following this bid. > >LHO cannot be deemed to having accepted the insufficient bid >by any call he might have made after the offender made his >second call (attempting to prematurely correct his >insufficient bid). (A call by LHO after the insufficient bid >but before the offender made his premature attempt to correct >his insufficient bid must of course be a different matter). Why must it? If you have a Law which allows the call by hte next player to be cancelled, why should it be cancelled after a premature correction by the offender but not otherwise? -- 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 Dec 12 11:14:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC0Cti23550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:12:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta08.mail.mel.aone.net.au ([203.2.192.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBC0CoH23546 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:12:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from p8m2n4 ([63.34.226.4]) by mta08.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20011212000538.ZSVU16236.mta08.mail.mel.aone.net.au@p8m2n4> for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:05:38 +1100 From: "John McIlrath" To: "BLML" Subject: FW: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:00:46 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: Wednesday, 12 December 2001 10:51 AM > Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) > > > hi all, > this hand was from the competition in our district > w /EW > > W N E S > P P 1H 2S > 3H P 4H ...P > P 4S > > North had: > s A4 > h 1043 > d J97 > c AJ732 > > Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? > regards, > anton > PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about > bidding 4S!!!! > (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) > N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and > was ready to > sacrifice. > I say TOUGH to North. What has changed since the PASS after the 3H bid? he should have sacrificed at that point. 4S is NOT a LA over a Pass John McIlrath -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 11:14:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC0DaE23556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:13:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBC0DUH23552 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:13:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-024.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.216]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA84367 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:06:10 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:05:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01C182A0.B707BB40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:05:30 -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 I like these easy ones! Pass is an LA. 4S is not evident. Best Regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Anton Witzen [SMTP:a.witzen@chello.nl] Sent: 11 December 2001 23:51 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) hi all, this hand was from the competition in our district w /EW W N E S P P 1H 2S 3H P 4H ...P P 4S North had: s A4 h 1043 d J97 c AJ732 Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? regards, anton PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about bidding 4S!!!! (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and was ready to sacrifice. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 11:46:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC0isY23594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:44:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (new-smtp1.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBC0iiH23590 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:44:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p105-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.164.105]) by new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id LAA12384; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:37:30 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p105-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.164.105] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011212113504.00f9b970@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:35:04 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity first; Legality second Cc: richard.hills@immi.gov.au In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:37 12/12/01 +1000, you wrote: > >In the thread "Australian Nationals #2 - 10 Questions", I >wrote: > >[snip] > >>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. Since I was the TD involved in this particular case (no, not the one that started the thread - fortunately I was 1000 kms away when that happened!), I feel I should clarify the above statement. The initial AC ruling was a problem, but it had little to do with LAs. The committee originally decided that a certain call was an infraction of Law 16 and decided to adjust the score for the OS. That was fine, but they also wanted to leave the NOS with their table result. Unfortunately, the only way the table result could be obtained was via the call they had just disallowed! Awarding a different score via the selection of a different LA would have been OK, they just couldn't include the illegal action among those LAs. In short they attempted to make what some refer to as a "Revelly Ruling". (Please also note that "wild, gambling or irrational" actions were not a factor in this case). As the TD it was may responsibilty to instruct them as per Law, after which they produced a "different", but perfectly legal decision. Richard's issue is of course with their change in attitude regarding whether Law 16 had been breached (which I agree was a surprising backflip). Laurie >>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. > >[snip] > >The AC wanted to penalise the inexperienced pair, but >without benefiting the experienced pair. When told by the >TD that their proposed split score was illegal, the AC >gave a non-split score. > >However, suddenly a PP appeared out of nowhere on the >inexperienced pair. This was despite the TD and CTD, plus >the first ruling of the AC, deciding that a PP was not >necessary. > >I reiterate my quote from Jeff Rubens (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] > >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 20:15:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC9Cml12134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:12:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBC9CfH12118 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:12:43 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:05:32 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E61B@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:05:25 +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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Witzen [mailto:a.witzen@chello.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 0:51 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) > > > hi all, > this hand was from the competition in our district > w /EW > > W N E S > P P 1H 2S > 3H P 4H ...P > P 4S > > North had: > s A4 > h 1043 > d J97 > c AJ732 > > Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? > regards, > anton > PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about > bidding 4S!!!! > (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) > N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made > and was ready to > sacrifice. So North thinks that 4H is easily made, eh? Give South SK and CK, and EW lose four black tricks, while South is still weak. Pass is therefore a VERY reasonable alternative. Unless of course 4H goes down and 4S 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 Wed Dec 12 20:15:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC9Cxw12160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:12:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBC9CoH12143 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rti21.wanadoo.fr; 12 Dec 2001 10:05:28 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.227.62) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr; 12 Dec 2001 10:05:27 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c182eb$83551040$3ee3f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011212005105.00ff5080@pop3.norton.antivirus> Subject: Re: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:00:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, Pass is a LA, witch is what we need. 4S is probably a LA, going for 500 against 620, but as Pass is a LA, you can go back to the "other" LA and let play 4H. Olivier. ----- Original Message ----- From: Anton Witzen To: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:51 AM Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) > hi all, > this hand was from the competition in our district > w /EW > > W N E S > P P 1H 2S > 3H P 4H ...P > P 4S > > North had: > s A4 > h 1043 > d J97 > c AJ732 > > Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? > regards, > anton > PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about > bidding 4S!!!! > (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) > N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and was ready to > sacrifice. > > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 20:22:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC9L1a13226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:21:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anagyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBC9KqH13222 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by anagyris.wanadoo.fr; 12 Dec 2001 10:13:32 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.227.62) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr; 12 Dec 2001 10:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: <008a01c182ec$94cadca0$3ee3f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:08:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, i am with you! I suggested such a thing a few years ago in France but somebody (Claude? i don,'t remember who) told me it wasn't allowed. I didn't changed my mind about it, so i am glad to be able to apply that now :)) Olivier. > > Some months ago I reacted on an article in which no adjusted score was given > because the pair involved made an egregious error and so was held > responsible for its bad score. It seemed quite an eye-opener for some of you > when I explained that some redress should have been given, so let me tell > about another case we had in my country. > > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, > we decided. Or didn't we? No, only part of the damage was subsequent so they > still got something back. If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > > Already routine? > > > ton > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 20:52:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBC9ojL13248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:50:45 +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 fBC9odH13244 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:50:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBC9hOC23217 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:43:24 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:43 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: FW: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) 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: > > Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) > > > > > > hi all, > > this hand was from the competition in our district > > w /EW > > > > W N E S > > P P 1H 2S > > 3H P 4H ...P > > P 4S > > > > North had: > > s A4 > > h 1043 > > d J97 > > c AJ732 > > > > Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? > > regards, > > anton > > PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about > > bidding 4S!!!! > > (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) > > N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and > > was ready to sacrifice. > > > I say TOUGH to North. What has changed since the PASS after the 3H bid? > he should have sacrificed at that point. What has changed is that EW are now playing in a vulnerable game. Why on earth would North have wanted to sacrifice (or push) over a part score. > 4S is NOT a LA over a Pass This must surely depend on the partnership style of weak twos. If you play disciplined (5-9, two top honours, not much outside) weak twos then a pass is crazy. You have limited hope (a club ruff) of beating 4H and can almost certainly hold the sacrifice to 500. If you play undisciplined weak twos (6-10, outside values allowed) then pass is reasonable, you will often beat 4H and find that 4S was a phantom. Assuming undisciplined twos then when South hesitates I would suspect it shows extra shape/values - Probably KQJxxx,x,KTxx,xx - I'm not sure that suggests bidding on anyway. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 21:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCA2Bn13269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:02:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCA25H13265 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:02:05 +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 KAA27892; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:51:43 +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 KAA02968; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:54:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011212102503.00ab17a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:56:19 +0100 To: Anton Witzen , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011212005105.00ff5080@pop3.norton.antivirus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:51 12/12/2001 +0100, Anton Witzen wrote: >hi all, >this hand was from the competition in our district >w /EW > >W N E S >P P 1H 2S >3H P 4H ...P >P 4S > >North had: >s A4 >h 1043 >d J97 >c AJ732 > >Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? >regards, >anton >PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about >bidding 4S!!!! >(2S is weak and shows a 6-card) >N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made and was ready to >sacrifice. AG : How could N "see" 4H would make ? His partner could well have KJ10xxx-x-KQx-xxx, or KQJxxx-xx-Qxxx-x. How could he see 4S was not expensive ? His partner coul well have (er, mine could have) Q10xxxx-xx-xxx-Kx. The answer to both is, of course, South's tempo. 4S is a LA, and so is a pass. (I guess at least half the field would pass). Between LAs, you may not choose whichever partner suggested. Ergo, you may not bid 4S. Easy. 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 Dec 12 21:08:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCA7R613283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:07:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCA7LH13279 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:07:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBC9xW031421; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:59:33 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:59:29 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/12/2001 10:59:32 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote . . . . (snip) > >LHO cannot be deemed to having accepted the insufficient bid >by any call he might have made after the offender made his >second call (attempting to prematurely correct his >insufficient bid). (A call by LHO after the insufficient bid >but before the offender made his premature attempt to correct >his insufficient bid must of course be a different matter). And David Stevenson then questioned: Why must it? If you have a Law which allows the call by hte next player to be cancelled, why should it be cancelled after a premature correction by the offender but not otherwise? My reply is: Oh, come on David, this must be far below your standard? (Or are you by any chance pulling my leg?) In that case the director should not start with L25 at all, he should start with L30B2, L31B or L32A whichever is applicable! (The insufficient bid is now history in this auction - L27A). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 21:18:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCAGpT13302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:16:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f141.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.141]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCAGfH13298 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:16:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 02:09:22 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:09:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:09:22 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2001 10:09:22.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[1225F380:01C182F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do better than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a different score. If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 irrespective of the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average punter? Does it fit the rules? >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: "Bridge Laws" >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:08:25 -0800 > >From: "David Burn" < > > > Marvin wrote: > > > > > -200 for *defending* two hearts making five, I assume in what follows, > > and > > > let us also asssume that 3C should easily have been beaten two tricks, > > +500 > > > for the NOS. The actual facts aren't important. > > > > No - the cheats had removed themselves from 2H, which was going one down > > doubled for a bottom, into 3C which ought to have gone two down doubled > > for a bottom, but was let through by ridiculous defence. Thus the > > cheats' score was adjusted to 2H doubled down one, the non-cheats' score > > remained at 3C doubled making the other way. Both of these results > > turned out to be worth exactly 0.00 match points. > > > > Of course, we had to come to some decision as to whether the non-cheats, > > who had let 3C doubled make, would also have let 2H doubled make at > > least some of the time. And here lay something of an anomaly - for the > > purposes of determining the cheats' score, we were constrained to find > > that it was "not at all likely" that the non-cheats would have allowed > > 2H doubled to make, even though we had just seen what they had done to > > 3C. You see, the non-cheats had to be treated for the purposes of > > determining the cheats' hypothetical score as though they were genius > > defenders, despite obviously being complete idiots. "Class of player", > > anyone? > > >Impeccable ruling, rightfully ignoring the "class of player" mantra. > >I just wanted to make the point that if the NOS could not have obtained >their +200 by rational actions against 3C, then they would have an >adjustment coming no matter how irrational their defense. For instance, if >they had not doubled 3C and doubling was not clear, their score should be >adjusted in spite of an irrational defense that lets 3C make instead of >defeating it one trick. > >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/ _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 12 22:36:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCBYkg16709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:34:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCBYeH16691 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBCBRDB10107; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:27:13 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "Alan Hill" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:27:11 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/12/2001 12:27:12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan Hill asked: I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do better than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a different score. If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 irrespective of the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average punter? Does it fit the rules? Sure it does. "Damage" is by definition a positive difference between the score NOS would have got without the infraction and the table score. If this difference is negative (NOS got a better result with the infraction) then there is no damage, thus no adjustment. (I'm too lazy to look up relevant law texts right now). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 00:03:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCD1k119967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:46 +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 fBCD1cH19959 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.151]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBCCsMJ17114 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:54:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C174920.3070506@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:10:08 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan Hill wrote: > > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do > better than the score available without infraction they should not be > held to a different score. > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave > the table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 > irrespective of the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by > the average punter? Does it fit the rules? > Maybe it fits the rules, but it does not fit the Code of Practice. In the Code of Practice, "damage" is defined as the fact that the table score is less than the possible score. Your approach also makes sense, but not if you think it through. You say "do not adjust if +800 is available, do if only +500 is available". What now if we don't exactly know how many tricks there are. Average ? "adjust if the expected score is less than +650 = if the chance of scoring +800 is less than half" seems a strange thing. Suppose the table score is +100, for one down. Now the AC has to decide whether with reasonable play the contract would have more or less than 50% chance of going 4 down. If the chance is more, no change, if it is less, adjust to "40% of +800, 60% of +500". I don't think so. We could go very much further in doing equity. We could decide something like : 100% of your table score +100 (stupid players) plus 60% of 4Sp+2 +680 plus 40% of 4Sp+1 +650 (these two reflect the expected score) minus 70% of 6HX-3 +500 minus 30% of 6HX-4 +800 (these two reflect the expected score with the infraction) but only if the sum of those last four, when converted to scoring units, are positive. I would not mind seeing that principle in the Lawbooks, as it would provide me (and a select band of others) with lots of work, because I doubt many TD's would be able to calculate this. No, I prefer we stick to simpler procedures, but they need to be well described. -- 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 Dec 13 00:03:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCD1jF19966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCD1aH19957 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.151]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBCCsHJ17055 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:54:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C174281.50709@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:41:53 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I admit to being in error. See Herman, that's not so difficult, is it ? Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > Herman De Wael commented: > > >>Please direct me to the WBFLC interpretation that says that >>my reasoning is wrong. >> > >>A player has made two calls, one of which is insufficient. >> > > for consistency with the thread I assume you mean the first. > > >>IMO, the first thing that the director needs to do is read >>L25 and decide whether L25A applies or not. If it doesn't, >>he needs to read L25B. Then we see that the substitute call >>can be condoned. >> > > Yes it can except when the original call was an insufficient > bid. In that case he is directed straight to L27 by the > footnote in L25B1. I thought that footnote was an ACBL fancy. It was added to the official Laws in 1997. Sorry. -- 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 Dec 13 00:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCDEHO19992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:14:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCDEBH19988 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:14:12 +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 fBCD6tP10420 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:06:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212080601.00b779b0@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, 12 Dec 2001 08:09:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011212005105.00ff5080@pop3.norton.antivirus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:51 PM 12/11/01, Anton wrote: >W N E S >P P 1H 2S >3H P 4H ...P >P 4S > >North had: >s A4 >h 1043 >d J97 >c AJ732 > >Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? That's a meaningless and irrelevant question. Logical alternative to what? The laws speak of considering the LAs *to* 4S, and directs us to determine whether 4S was demonstrably suggested over any of them by the tempo. Here it looks like it certainly was, so an adjustment would be appropriate. 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 Dec 13 00:28:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCDR3520007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:27:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCDQwH20003 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:26:58 +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 fBCDJgH07588 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:19:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212081520.00b53760@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, 12 Dec 2001 08:22:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 05:09 AM 12/12/01, Alan wrote: >I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do >better than the score available without infraction they should not be >held to a different score. >If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS >to play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you >gave the table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 >irrespective of the defence. Simple? Yes. > Straightforward? Yes. > Understandable by the average punter? Yes. > Does it fit the rules? No. To give the NOs the table score, it is far from sufficient that 800 was available from reasonable defence. Rather, the NOs' failure to get +800 must have been the result of an egregious error (ACBL) or a wild, gambling or irrational action (WBF). At minimum, it requires that there be *no* (even vaguely) reasonable defense that would have resulted in less than +800. In the circumstances described, you would normally give the NOs +650; letting them keep their table score would be extremely rare. 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 Dec 13 01:55:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCErJF04816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:53:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCErDH04812 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:53:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-105.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.105]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id DC95236E09; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:45:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1831a$dc900960$69b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:38:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> Also before '97 an insufficient bid could not be accepted (if I rememeber >> this well). > Steve: >Sorry, Ton, I'm afraid either the above did not come out as you >intended or else your memory is as bad as mine. L27A was unchanged in >the 1997 Laws, and in 1987 there was only a trivial change in wording >having no effect that I can see. > >My memory says it was possible to accept an insufficient bid even >before 1975, but as noted above this may not be trustworthy. You are completely right, and believe it or not: I never wanted to say what I did say (an inadvertent saying, so to say). What I meant is that before '97 we did not allow a premature substitution of an insufficient bid either. We needed more interpretation than we do now, with the footnote included (if I remember well). ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 02:48:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCFkJA09861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 02:46:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCFkCH09836 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 02:46:12 +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 KAA23224 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA19234 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:38:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:38:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112121538.KAA19234@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Ton Kooijman" > before > '97 we did not allow a premature substitution of an insufficient bid either. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, prior to 1997 (or at least as of 1987 -- I haven't checked earlier editions) there was explicit language in L27B saying that any premature correction of an insufficient bid is cancelled. That language was removed in 1997, but the effect of the Lille interpretation appears to be to restore the same outcome. L25B also changed in 1997. The interaction with L27 might have been a long BLML argument, but the 1997 footnote at least settles that one. (By the way, my copy of the ACBL edition, received 1997 November, shows no indication of being a second printing, and it has the 25B footnote.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 03:21:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCGJni15535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:19:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f150.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBCGJiH15531 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:19:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:12:25 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:12:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: hermandw@village.uunet.be Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:12:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2001 16:12:25.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9D1FD30:01C18327] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is where I think you go too far. If there is doubt s to whether a reasonable defence would have got 800 you give 650. We should be looking for cases where the NOS clearly damaged themselves. >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:10:08 +0100 > >Alan Hill wrote: > >> >>I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do >>better than the score available without infraction they should not be >>held to a different score. >>If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to >>play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave >>the table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 >>irrespective of the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by >>the average punter? Does it fit the rules? > >> > > >Maybe it fits the rules, but it does not fit the Code of >Practice. > >In the Code of Practice, "damage" is defined as the fact >that the table score is less than the possible score. > >Your approach also makes sense, but not if you think it >through. You say "do not adjust if +800 is available, do if >only +500 is available". What now if we don't exactly know >how many tricks there are. Average ? "adjust if the expected >score is less than +650 = if the chance of scoring +800 is >less than half" seems a strange thing. > >Suppose the table score is +100, for one down. Now the AC >has to decide whether with reasonable play the contract >would have more or less than 50% chance of going 4 down. If >the chance is more, no change, if it is less, adjust to "40% >of +800, 60% of +500". I don't think so. > >We could go very much further in doing equity. We could >decide something like : > > 100% of your table score +100 (stupid players) >plus 60% of 4Sp+2 +680 >plus 40% of 4Sp+1 +650 (these two reflect the expected score) >minus 70% of 6HX-3 +500 >minus 30% of 6HX-4 +800 (these two reflect the expected >score with the infraction) >but only if the sum of those last four, when converted to >scoring units, are positive. > >I would not mind seeing that principle in the Lawbooks, as >it would provide me (and a select band of others) with lots >of work, because I doubt many TD's would be able to >calculate this. No, I prefer we stick to simpler procedures, >but they need to be well described. > >-- >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/ _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 03:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCGbD815553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:37:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCGb8H15549 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:37:09 +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 IAA17745; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:29:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200112121629.IAA17745@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:05:25 +0100." <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E61B@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:29:51 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anton Witzen [mailto:a.witzen@chello.nl] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 0:51 > > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Subject: [BLML] a thinking problem (with a pass) > > > > > > hi all, > > this hand was from the competition in our district > > w /EW > > > > W N E S > > P P 1H 2S > > 3H P 4H ...P > > P 4S > > > > North had: > > s A4 > > h 1043 > > d J97 > > c AJ732 > > > > Do you think 4s is a LA over a Pass? > > regards, > > anton > > PS Requested S about his pause he answered that he was thinking about > > bidding 4S!!!! > > (2S is weak and shows a 6-card) > > N replied that he could easily see that 4H was easily made > > and was ready to > > sacrifice. > > So North thinks that 4H is easily made, eh? Give South SK and CK, > and EW lose four black tricks, while South is still weak. Pass > is therefore a VERY reasonable alternative. Unless of course > 4H goes down and 4S as well :) You don't even have to give South that much. Give him the SK and Jx of hearts; three rounds of spades may then promote a trump trick. *My* problem with the hand is that I don't know what the hesitation suggests because I cannot imagine what South might be thinking about! Could he really be thinking about bidding 4S on his 6-carder, having only bid 2S the first time and hearing no noise from partner? Was he bidding 2S on an 8-bagger at these colors? Could he be thinking about doubling on his massive 1- or 2-card trump stack? Does he have a two-suiter? Maybe the last is right; if South did bid 4S at this point, I think he'd have to be showing 6=0=2=5 or 6=0=5=2 or something like that. Or was he thinking about which restaurant to go to for dinner? I don't know. But I think passing is clearly an LA to 4S, and I'm willing to rule that the hesitation "could demonstrably have suggested" sacrificing, even though I really don't understand the hesitation. -- 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 Dec 13 05:11:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCI9Kn20982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:09:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBCI9FH20978 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:09:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 18020 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2001 18:02:01 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.260047 secs); 12 Dec 2001 18:02:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.239) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 12 Dec 2001 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:54:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Alan Hill Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Alan Hill asked: > > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do > better > than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a > different score. > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the > table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 irrespective > of > the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average punter? I don't understand. I am booked for a reasonable score of +650 or an ok score of +620 if I screw up and miss the obvious overtrick. Maybe these scores are worth 60% and 50% respectively at matchpoints - some pairs missed the game. Similarly, at Imps against similar players I can expect a push or near push in either case or a healthy gain if our opps miss game. This is all money in the bank. Now my opponents infract the laws. This potentially works out poorly for them and good for us as we have +800 available. Unfortunately, we might screw up. Under these circumstances and only get +500. Now at matchpoints we score a near top 90-100% or poor 20-30%, say and at Imps we gain or lose 4 Imps if our teammates come back with -650. Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see that even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is a result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had this poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. > > Does it fit the rules? > > Sure it does. > "Damage" is by definition a positive difference between the score NOS > would have got without the infraction and the table score. I agree with this but it contradicts what you said above. "If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the table score." If 800 is available we don't get 800 unless we defend correctly: NOS Score 800 avail Damage Adjust no infraction table score Definition 650 800 No No 650 500 Yes No* * you say because 800 was available you give them the table score - which was 500 even though by your definition there was damage. I would say even further using the language of L16A2 that the opponent's infraction 'resulted in damage'. >If this > difference is negative (NOS got a better result with the infraction) > then there is no damage, thus no adjustment. (I'm too lazy to look up > relevant law texts right now). > > regards Sven Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 06:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCJO2B02195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:24:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCJNvH02191 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 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 fBCJGgB07006 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:16:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001f01c18341$6737af20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:13:22 -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: "Alan Hill" > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do better > than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a > different score. > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the > table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 irrespective of > the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average punter? > Does it fit the rules? > Yes, a simple and correct policy, explained by Edgar Kaplan, that seems not to be widely understood. Moreover, if +650 requires quite good play, otherwise +620, then +650 regardless of the "class of player." 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 Dec 13 06:40:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCJdFu03170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:39:15 +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 fBCJd9H03166 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:39:10 +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 fBCJVtB13084 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:31:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002b01c18343$849cca80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:30:51 -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 Wayne Burrows wrote: > > I am booked for a reasonable score of +650 or an ok score of +620 if I screw > up and miss the obvious overtrick. Maybe these scores are worth 60% and 50% > respectively at matchpoints - some pairs missed the game. Similarly, at > Imps against similar players I can expect a push or near push in either case > or a healthy gain if our opps miss game. This is all money in the bank. > > Now my opponents infract the laws. This potentially works out poorly for > them and good for us as we have +800 available. Unfortunately, we might > screw up. Under these circumstances and only get +500. Now at matchpoints > we score a near top 90-100% or poor 20-30%, say and at Imps we gain or lose > 4 Imps if our teammates come back with -650. > > Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see that > even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is a > result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had this > poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. > If I wade through all those negatives correctly, then... Wayne, it was long ago decided, and reaffirmed by the WBFLC at Lille, that the NOS is not damaged by an infraction if they shoot themselves in the foot after it. If by merely acting rationally (no revokes, etc.) they could obtain a result superior to the one that would have happened absent the infraction, then they haven't been damaged. They keep the table result and only the OS score is adjusted. But the "screw up" has to be extremely bad, not merely poor bridge, for redress to be annulled. 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 Dec 13 07:31:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCKTlN08136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:29:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCKTfH08112 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:29:42 +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 fBCKMRB10040 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:22:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003a01c1834a$8f4d2220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:21:00 -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 Sven wrote: > Alan Hill asked: > > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do > better > than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a > different score. > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave the > table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 irrespective > of > the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average punter? > > Does it fit the rules? > > Sure it does. > "Damage" is by definition a positive difference between the score NOS > would have got without the infraction and the table score. For damage attributable to the OS, yes. The definition doesn't always hold for the NOS. > If this > difference is negative (NOS got a better result with the infraction) > then there is no damage, thus no adjustment. That is correct, but more is needed to complete the story: If the difference is positive (NOS got a worse result with the infraction), then normally the score is adjusted for both sides in accordance with L12C2 (plus L12C3 if applicable). However, if the NOS could have made the difference negative by merely playing rational bridge (i.e., not "wild, gambling, or irrational"), then only the score of the OS is adjusted. 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 Dec 13 08:58:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBCLu4r28732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:56:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBCLtwH28706 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:55:58 +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 fBCLmgi54967 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:48:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@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, 12 Dec 2001 16:50:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 11:36 AM 12/12/01, Alan wrote: >Thanks. I agree with you. I was trying to simplify the language. >Reasonable / unreasonable. I would be likely in most case to give the >table score. > >>From: Eric Landau >> >>No. To give the NOs the table score, it is far from sufficient that >>800 was available from reasonable defence. Rather, the NOs' failure to >>get +800 must have been the result of an egregious error (ACBL) or a >>wild, gambling or irrational action (WBF). At minimum, it requires >>that there be *no* (even vaguely) reasonable defense that would have >>resulted in less than +800. In the circumstances described, you would >>normally give the NOs +650; letting them keep their table score would >>be extremely rare. But, Alan, if you would still be likely to give the table score, then you don't agree with me at all. "Unreasonable" just doesn't hack it. To give the table score, you must find that the defense was "egregious", which is a *much* stronger criterion. Only a very tiny fraction of defenses we would readily call unreasonable can be considered egregious, thus only a very tiny fraction of NOSs who "damage themselves" by putting up an unreasonable defense should receive their table score. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 11:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD08DN07770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:08:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBD086H07766 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:08:07 +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 AAA16890 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:58:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:36 AM 12/12/01, Alan wrote: > >>Thanks. I agree with you. I was trying to simplify the language. >>Reasonable / unreasonable. I would be likely in most case to give the >>table score. >> >>>From: Eric Landau >>> >>>No. To give the NOs the table score, it is far from sufficient that >>>800 was available from reasonable defence. Rather, the NOs' failure to >>>get +800 must have been the result of an egregious error (ACBL) or a >>>wild, gambling or irrational action (WBF). At minimum, it requires >>>that there be *no* (even vaguely) reasonable defense that would have >>>resulted in less than +800. In the circumstances described, you would >>>normally give the NOs +650; letting them keep their table score would >>>be extremely rare. > >But, Alan, if you would still be likely to give the table score, then >you don't agree with me at all. "Unreasonable" just doesn't hack >it. To give the table score, you must find that the defense was >"egregious", which is a *much* stronger criterion. Only a very tiny >fraction of defenses we would readily call unreasonable can be >considered egregious, thus only a very tiny fraction of NOSs who >"damage themselves" by putting up an unreasonable defense should >receive their table score. I go further. I make the assertion that the NO's were never in the position of defending this contract. I am aware of the possibility of double shot - and why not. They can try a second shot at these cheating ba(*)ds in a 2nd attempt to get a decent score, they don't have to play well, why should they? If they succeed well done, if not we give them the benefit of the ruled back contract. I do not really accept that even, in ultimo, when their play defies the logic of Mrs Guggenheim playing with a blind partner they should suffer the subsequent damage, if they're defending a contract they shouldn't have, but I'm prepared to go along with it if I have to. As for the consequent damage, never. cheers john > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 11:13:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD0BfP07786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:11:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBD0BaH07782 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:11:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-131-240.btinternet.com ([213.122.131.240] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EJLq-0002il-00; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:03:51 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:02:43 -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 Wayne wrote: > Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see that > even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is a > result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had this > poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. If my opponents bid something from which I am in a position to extract a penalty of 800, while if they had not bid it I would be unable to score more than 650, in what way have my opponents damaged my side? When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely (quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved without the infraction. But when they commit an infraction that leaves me able to achieve a result worth more than any I would have been able to achieve absent the infraction, the infraction cannot reasonably be said to have resulted in damage. Instead, it has resulted in advantage to my side. If I then fail to achieve that superior result through my own ineptitude, the damage has followed the infraction, but has not followed from the infraction - in Kaplan's phrase, the damage was subsequent to, but not consequent upon, the infraction. Now, in order to say that the causal link between infraction and damage has been broken, we apply a test that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but is in all cases relatively generous as far as the non-offending side is concerned. We do not require merely that the NOS has acted foolishly or carelessly in passing up the superior score offered - we require that its shortcomings have been "egregious", or "irrational". A couple of examples may illustrate the kind of thinking involved: if my opponents commit some infraction and arrive in 7NT against which I am on lead with an ace, then if the contract makes, it is safe to say that my side has taken some egregious action, and its table result should stand (though the offenders will, in my country at least, receive the score they would have received without the infraction). But if it is my partner who has the ace, and if I fail to lead the correct suit - however obvious the lead may be from the auction - then the result for both sides will be adjusted to what would have happened without the infraction (this is an over-simplification of L12, but it will do for the present). This, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of disagreement as to what constitutes "egregious" action. I wonder - if my LHO opened 3D, showing by his methods a long diamond suit headed by AKQ, and if my opponents then arrived through some infraction in 7NT, doubled by my partner, would it be egregious for me to lead a diamond? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 17:37:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD6Zub10552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:35:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBD6ZoH10548 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:35:51 +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 fBD6SZB25083 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:28:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:17:08 -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: "David Burn" > When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to > achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to > achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in > damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I > can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely > (quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved > without the infraction. Marvin is always quiet when the word "likely" is quoted in full context, as everyone should be careful to do. Very good, David. > This, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of disagreement as > to what constitutes "egregious" action. I wonder - if my LHO opened 3D, > showing by his methods a long diamond suit headed by AKQ, and if my > opponents then arrived through some infraction in 7NT, doubled by my > partner, would it be egregious for me to lead a diamond? > No, if your partnership agreement is that a double calls for a diamond lead. But it's egregious for partner to double without the ace of diamonds if his double says, "He forgot or ignored their agreement, lead a diamond!" Unfortunately some TDs/ACs don't know what Kaplan's "egregious" means, thinking it refers to what is merely poor bridge (for the "class of player," of course). The word comes from Latin's "outside the flock." Fowler says it has come to be the pejorative antithesis of "outstanding," so an egregious ass is much worse than your standard ass. 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 Dec 13 19:35:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD8Y5P14530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:34:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f168.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBD8XxH14526 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:34:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:26:39 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:26:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: cascade@infogen.net.nz Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:26:38 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2001 08:26:39.0467 (UTC) FILETIME=[E309CBB0:01C183AF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 800 not just available but readily available. NOS did something particularly silly not to get it. If it required a correct choice of plays that was not necessarily obvious, adjust to 650. >From: "Wayne Burrows" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:54:00 -0800 > >Hi >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: Alan Hill >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:27 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > > > > > Alan Hill asked: > > > > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do > > better > > than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a > > different score. > > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to > > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave >the > > table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 >irrespective > > of > > the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average >punter? > > >I don't understand. > >I am booked for a reasonable score of +650 or an ok score of +620 if I >screw >up and miss the obvious overtrick. Maybe these scores are worth 60% and >50% >respectively at matchpoints - some pairs missed the game. Similarly, at >Imps against similar players I can expect a push or near push in either >case >or a healthy gain if our opps miss game. This is all money in the bank. > >Now my opponents infract the laws. This potentially works out poorly for >them and good for us as we have +800 available. Unfortunately, we might >screw up. Under these circumstances and only get +500. Now at matchpoints >we score a near top 90-100% or poor 20-30%, say and at Imps we gain or lose >4 Imps if our teammates come back with -650. > >Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see that >even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is a >result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had this >poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. > > > > > > Does it fit the rules? > > > > Sure it does. > > "Damage" is by definition a positive difference between the score NOS > > would have got without the infraction and the table score. > >I agree with this but it contradicts what you said above. "If 800 was >available from reasonable defence then you gave the table score." > >If 800 is available we don't get 800 unless we defend correctly: > >NOS Score 800 avail Damage Adjust >no infraction table score Definition > > 650 800 No No > 650 500 Yes No* > >* you say because 800 was available you give them the table score - which >was 500 even though by your definition there was damage. I would say even >further using the language of L16A2 that the opponent's infraction >'resulted >in damage'. > > >If this > > difference is negative (NOS got a better result with the infraction) > > then there is no damage, thus no adjustment. (I'm too lazy to look up > > relevant law texts right now). > > > > regards Sven > >Wayne Burrows > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Thu Dec 13 20:09:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD97FV14556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:07:15 +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 fBD978H14552 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:07:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA15495; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:59:52 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 09:57:09 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 <01KBTDBESQOY002OKX@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:59:38 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:59:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:59:38 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 ton: > > Already routine? > > > > > Herman: > Before such things become routine, I would like to see how > the principle applies to other methods of counting. > > Suppose it is a pairs tounament (non-Butler). > > I suppose +650 would be slightly above average. Let's say > 58% so as to be able to see what the calculations are. > > With the infraction, the normal result becomes +100, > presumably near a bottom, let's put it at 15%. > With the eggregious error, the result is -1210, for an > absolute bottom of 1%. > > That would mean the consequent damage was 43%, and the > subsequent was 14%. So you award 58-14=44%. OK ? > certainly, good student Good to emphasize another point slightly changing your figures. If 4S + 1 gives 58% and nobody is in 6H, therefore 6HX - 1 resulting in a bottom (zero) we still may find that defending it resulting in 6HX made is terrible bridge but in matchpoints it doesn't effect the score anymore. The subsequent damage in tricks is there, but we don't find it back in the score. Redress should be the whole 58%. ton > I can live with that. > > I would even formulate it as follows > > 100% of 4Sp+1 > plus 100% of 6HX= > minus 100% of 6HX-1 > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 13 20:31:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBD9Slv14575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:28:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBD9SfH14571 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:28:41 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA14785; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:21:25 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 10:18:43 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 <01KBTE267L1G002P0B@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:20:26 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:20:21 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:20:24 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.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 Wayne: > Law 16A2 states > "...The Director shall require the auction and play to > continue, standing > ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an > infraction of law > has resulted in damage." > > This law merely states that the infraction has resulted in damage. Which needs interpretation. And our approach is that when somebody plays stupidly that fact may result in a bad score, the damage not being a result of the infraction any more. > > It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of damage > that may result: > > 1. as in c. above the NOS score 100 instead of 650 through > absolutely no > fault of their own; > > 2. as in d. above (compared with b. above). The NOS > egregiuous error cost > them 7 imps whereas a similar error in their safe major game > would have only > cost 1 imp. The opponent's infraction upped the ante. I can't see any > reasonable justification for making the NOS pay 7 imps > when without the infraction they would only be playing for 1 > imp. IMO this > is clearly 'resultant damage' That is a pity. It is not in the opinion of those who need to interpret the laws. We had this discussion quite a few times before and I am not prepared to start it all over again. Read a nice article about consequent and subsequent damage which appeared here some months ago. ton > > Having come to the conclusion that this is resultant damage Indeed, logically true but you shouldn't come to that conclusion. > the director is > constrained by L12C2 to award: > > 1. "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not > occurred" to the NOS - in almost all cases 650 and 0 Imps as I do not > necessarily believe that an error in one contract (and > circumstance) means > that an error in an alternative contract was "likely"; > > 2. "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" to > the OS - in > most cases -650 but reasonably often a score of -680 or -710 > if an inferior > lead or misdefense etc could result in those scores. > > As the laws are currently written I do not see how, in law, a > score of -18 > imps, -11 imps, -7 imps or even -1 imp can be assigned to a > NOS who were > booked for a push before the infraction. > > Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 21:42:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDAeaa14610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:40:36 +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 fBDAeUH14606 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:40:30 +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 KAA17963 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:33:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:29:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$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 <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Burn" > >> When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to >> achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to >> achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in >> damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I >> can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely >> (quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved >> without the infraction. > >Marvin is always quiet when the word "likely" is quoted in full context, as >everyone should be careful to do. Very good, David. > >> This, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of disagreement as >> to what constitutes "egregious" action. I wonder - if my LHO opened 3D, >> showing by his methods a long diamond suit headed by AKQ, and if my >> opponents then arrived through some infraction in 7NT, doubled by my >> partner, would it be egregious for me to lead a diamond? >> >No, if your partnership agreement is that a double calls for a diamond lead. But >it's egregious for partner to double without the ace of diamonds if his double >says, "He forgot or ignored their agreement, lead a diamond!" > >Unfortunately some TDs/ACs don't know what Kaplan's "egregious" means, thinking >it refers to what is merely poor bridge (for the "class of player," of course). >The word comes from Latin's "outside the flock." Fowler says it has come to be >the pejorative antithesis of "outstanding," so an egregious ass is much worse >than your standard ass. > perhaps we should define egregious as "beyond even the abilities of Mrs. Guggenheim". My own view is that we are far too harsh on the NOs as to what constitutes, in the UK haphazard, wild, gambling or in the US egregious. The NO's have had to call the TD in because their opponents are cheating. Do you expect them to play good bridge? Their pulse rate has gone from 90-130 from the adrenaline surge, they're hyper- ventilating (I've seen it many times) - come on guys, we should be protecting them, and bending over backwards to do so. 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 Thu Dec 13 21:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDAh9l14626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:43:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDAh3H14622 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:43:03 +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 KAA17968 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:35:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:32:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 , Alan Hill writes >800 not just available but readily available. NOS did something particularly >silly not to get it. If it required a correct choice of plays that was not >necessarily obvious, adjust to 650. > "particularly silly" is still not sufficient. Perhaps failing to give partner a ruff, after he's shown out would be sufficient - even Mrs Guggenheim usually does this. >>From: "Wayne Burrows" >>To: >>Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:54:00 -0800 >> >>Hi >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: >>To: Alan Hill >>Cc: >>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:27 AM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >> >> >> > >> > Alan Hill asked: >> > >> > I have always worked on the basis that if the NOS were not able to do >> > better >> > than the score available without infraction they should not be held to a >> > different score. >> > If you would adjust to +650 in 4S+1 but the infraction allowed the OS to >> > play in 6H. If 800 was available from reasonable defence then you gave >>the >> > table score. If a maximum of 500 was available you gave +650 >>irrespective >> > of >> > the defence. Simple? Straightforward? Understandable by the average >>punter? >> >> >>I don't understand. >> >>I am booked for a reasonable score of +650 or an ok score of +620 if I >>screw >>up and miss the obvious overtrick. Maybe these scores are worth 60% and >>50% >>respectively at matchpoints - some pairs missed the game. Similarly, at >>Imps against similar players I can expect a push or near push in either >>case >>or a healthy gain if our opps miss game. This is all money in the bank. >> >>Now my opponents infract the laws. This potentially works out poorly for >>them and good for us as we have +800 available. Unfortunately, we might >>screw up. Under these circumstances and only get +500. Now at matchpoints >>we score a near top 90-100% or poor 20-30%, say and at Imps we gain or lose >>4 Imps if our teammates come back with -650. >> >>Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see that >>even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is a >>result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had this >>poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. >> >> >> > >> > Does it fit the rules? >> > >> > Sure it does. >> > "Damage" is by definition a positive difference between the score NOS >> > would have got without the infraction and the table score. >> >>I agree with this but it contradicts what you said above. "If 800 was >>available from reasonable defence then you gave the table score." >> >>If 800 is available we don't get 800 unless we defend correctly: >> >>NOS Score 800 avail Damage Adjust >>no infraction table score Definition >> >> 650 800 No No >> 650 500 Yes No* >> >>* you say because 800 was available you give them the table score - which >>was 500 even though by your definition there was damage. I would say even >>further using the language of L16A2 that the opponent's infraction >>'resulted >>in damage'. >> >> >If this >> > difference is negative (NOS got a better result with the infraction) >> > then there is no damage, thus no adjustment. (I'm too lazy to look up >> > relevant law texts right now). >> > >> > regards Sven >> >>Wayne Burrows >> >>-- >>======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- 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 Dec 13 21:58:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDAv7814642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:57:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBDAv2H14638 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:57:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2801 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 10:49:46 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.031557 secs); 13 Dec 2001 10:49:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.216) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 10:49:45 -0000 Message-ID: <01ad01c18472$d47bb5e0$ef15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002b01c18343$849cca80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:42:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > If I wade through all those negatives correctly, then... > > Wayne, it was long ago decided, and reaffirmed by the WBFLC at Lille, that > the NOS is not damaged by an infraction if they shoot themselves in the foot > after it. If by merely acting rationally (no revokes, etc.) they could > obtain a result superior to the one that would have happened absent the > infraction, then they haven't been damaged. They keep the table result and > only the OS score is adjusted. > > But the "screw up" has to be extremely bad, not merely poor bridge, for > redress to be annulled. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California Maybe - what am I supposed to do, bow down and worship. No not if I don't think that this is what the law says. If at worst my score is +/- 30 points before an infraction and I am put in a position where I might lose 100s and I do then I most certainly feel I am damaged and damaged by the opponents infraction even if I did contribute. People make mistakes. But if the opponent's infraction increases the cost of my mistake then I call that damage - 'resultant damage' using the terminology of the law. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 22:19:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDBHba17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:17:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBDBHVH17260 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:17:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12534 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 11:10:16 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.446239 secs); 13 Dec 2001 11:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.216) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 11:10:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:02:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Wayne Burrows ; Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Wayne wrote: > > > Using your language I can not see how an 'average punter' can't see > that > > even if we did screw up our matchpoint near bottom or our IMP loss is > a > > result of the opponent's infraction - that is we could not have had > this > > poor score or loss unless the opponents infracted the law. > > If my opponents bid something from which I am in a position to extract a > penalty of 800, while if they had not bid it I would be unable to score > more than 650, in what way have my opponents damaged my side? Because this is only one side of the coin. A position to extract 800 is not the same as extracting 800. A position to extract 800 means I might extract a lesser number and the cost and chance of this is damage. The other side of your coin is: If the opponents offer me a way of getting only 500 when I could not have got less than 620 then I must be damaged when I only get 500 even if somehow I could have got eights or elevens or whatever. > > When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to > achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to > achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in > damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I > can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely > (quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved > without the infraction. > > But when they commit an infraction that leaves me able to achieve a > result worth more than any I would have been able to achieve absent the > infraction, the infraction cannot reasonably be said to have resulted in > damage. Instead, it has resulted in advantage to my side. If I then fail > to achieve that superior result through my own ineptitude, the damage > has followed the infraction, but has not followed from the infraction - > in Kaplan's phrase, the damage was subsequent to, but not consequent > upon, the infraction. Unfortunately the language in the law is '...results in...'. And nevertheless I would vociferously argue that an inferior score of 300 or 500, that I could not obtain without the infraction is a consequence of the infraction. > > Now, in order to say that the causal link between infraction and damage > has been broken, we apply a test that varies from jurisdiction to > jurisdiction, but is in all cases relatively generous as far as the > non-offending side is concerned. We do not require merely that the NOS > has acted foolishly or carelessly in passing up the superior score > offered - we require that its shortcomings have been "egregious", or > "irrational". Frankly I don't see how it matters what sort of error was made a score of 500 is a consequence of the infraction - it is an impossible result without the infraction. Change the law if it is supposed to mean something different. Don't offer interpretations that distort the natural meaning of a word or phrase such as '...results in...' To my mind the Law says the non-offenders must get the most favourable result that was likely ... I don't actually think that that is always fair but I do believe that that is what is written. However I also don't believe 500 or worse is fair when absent the infraction I was booked for 620 at worst. An egregious error in 4s gives me 620. An egregious error in 5hx gives me -850 or whatever. So you give me -850. How can you justify that? Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 13 22:30:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDBSeq20069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:28:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDBRvH19894 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:28:02 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA12174; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:20:30 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 12:17:47 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 <01KBTI8HAOQK002PJ8@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:20:03 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:19:58 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:19:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , 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 Wayne: > Maybe - what am I supposed to do, bow down and worship. > > No not if I don't think that this is what the law says. > > If at worst my score is +/- 30 points before an infraction > and I am put in a > position where I might lose 100s and I do then I most > certainly feel I am > damaged and damaged by the opponents infraction even if I did > contribute. > > People make mistakes. But if the opponent's infraction > increases the cost > of my mistake then I call that damage - 'resultant damage' using the > terminology of the law. > As long as you stay in New Zealand, beautiful country I heard, and don't tell this to your administrators, you might survive. You even may use a lawbook there in which you can find 'resultant damage' and defining it your way, as far as I am concerned. The question whether you should post your ideas on BLML is another one. (I know dear David S, this doesn't sound very friendly. Can you offer some comfort? Kojak is not the right man to ask). ton > Wayne > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 13 23:42:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDCeFr29477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:40:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDCe9H29473 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:40:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-147-240.btinternet.com ([213.122.147.240] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EV2h-0004DL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:32:52 +0000 Message-ID: <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:31:18 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne wrote: > If the opponents offer me a way of getting only 500 when I could not have > got less than 620 then I must be damaged when I only get 500 even if somehow > I could have got eights or elevens or whatever. Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a £50 note. I thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been damaged by the stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? > Unfortunately the language in the law is '...results in...'. Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. > Frankly I don't see how it matters what sort of error was made a score of > 500 is a consequence of the infraction - it is an impossible result without > the infraction. When I misinform my opponents, should the TD fine my parents, because had they not met - "resulting in" my being present to give misinformation - I would never have done so? There is a real (though quite subtle) difference between X being "impossible without" Y and X being a "consequence of" Y. > Change the law if it is supposed to mean something different. Don't offer > interpretations that distort the natural meaning of a word or phrase such as > '...results in...' It is not I who is creating a distortion. > To my mind the Law says the non-offenders must get the most favourable > result that was likely ... Indeed it does, when the unfavourable result is a consequence of - that is, has followed inevitably from - the infraction. But if the unfavourable result has not followed inevitably (or at all) from the infraction, but from some folly on my part, no redress is due. Again, one must distinguish - though it is not always easy to do so - from an X which "follows" Y and an X which "follows from" Y. > I don't actually think that that is always fair but I do believe that that > is what is written. I have some sympathy (more than Ton has, at any rate, but he has been around this loop so many times that I am not surprised he is tired of it!) What is written is, it must be said, capable of more than one interpretation, and yours is not necessarily an invalid one. But much has since been written to clarify the position, to indicate which of the possible interpretations is to be followed, and the question is by now well understood. > However I also don't believe 500 or worse is fair when absent the infraction > I was booked for 620 at worst. > > An egregious error in 4s gives me 620. > An egregious error in 5hx gives me -850 or whatever. > > So you give me -850. > > How can you justify that? If you make mistakes, you get rotten scores. I don't think this needs a great deal of justification. 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 Dec 14 00:17:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDDG3r01645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:16:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDDFvH01626 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:15:58 +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 fBDD8eH19402 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:08:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011213080607.00ac3a80@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, 13 Dec 2001 08:10:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@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 06:58 PM 12/12/01, John wrote: >In article <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau > writes > > >But, Alan, if you would still be likely to give the table score, then > >you don't agree with me at all. "Unreasonable" just doesn't hack > >it. To give the table score, you must find that the defense was > >"egregious", which is a *much* stronger criterion. Only a very tiny > >fraction of defenses we would readily call unreasonable can be > >considered egregious, thus only a very tiny fraction of NOSs who > >"damage themselves" by putting up an unreasonable defense should > >receive their table score. > >I go further. I make the assertion that the NO's were never in the >position of defending this contract. I am aware of the possibility of >double shot - and why not. They can try a second shot at these cheating >ba(*)ds in a 2nd attempt to get a decent score, they don't have to play >well, why should they? If they succeed well done, if not we give them >the benefit of the ruled back contract. > >I do not really accept that even, in ultimo, when their play defies the >logic of Mrs Guggenheim playing with a blind partner they should suffer >the subsequent damage, if they're defending a contract they shouldn't >have, but I'm prepared to go along with it if I have to. As for the >consequent damage, never. I fully agree. I'd love to see out lawmakers bury the whole "egregious error" mess, and go back to applying the words of L12C2 as written: "the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Period. Consequent, schmonsequent. 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 Dec 14 00:27:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDDOCm03352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:24:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDDO5H03320 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:24:06 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA16402; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:16:49 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 14:14:06 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 <01KBTM9ZRL7C002PPW@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:15:48 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:15:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:15:45 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , 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 Wayne: > Unfortunately the language in the law is '...results in...'. > > > Frankly I don't see how it matters what sort of error was > made a score of > 500 is a consequence of the infraction - it is an impossible > result without > the infraction. > > Change the law if it is supposed to mean something different. Different to what? Your personal interpretation in which you show not to be able to make a distinction between 'after' and 'caused by'? Read the story about "Waterloo' already? > Don't offer > interpretations that distort the natural meaning of a word or > phrase such as > '...results in...' We don't offer something you might choose not to accept. And trying to win this argument suggesting that you are the one to tell what the 'natural meaning' of 'results in' is, doesn't really work. Let me give you an example, more for fun than hoping for insight. The Dutch soccer (football) team is famous for not being able to profit from penalty kicks. In one of the last draws they had a year or so ago they missed 4 out of 5. Let us assume that their opponent causes an infraction resulting in such a penalty and we don't need to assume that they miss the penalty, because we know they will. The match now ends in 0 - 0 and a series of 5 penalties has to be taken by both teams. The other team wins of course. In your approach the fact that the Dutch team doesn't qualify is caused by the infraction (I agree they had a fair chance of making a goal without it). In everyone else opinion, even in the eyes of our football players, they are themselves the cause for this disaster. Let us make it more hypothetical: In this sport the penalty kick offers a choice in the measures of the goal, which can be made smaller. Succeeding in kicking the ball in when the goal is the smallest possible, gives you three points in once. But experience is that hardly any player ever succeeds. Well, for the Dutch there is no difference, big or small they will miss anyway, so why not choosing the small one then? Yes, they miss. Still the infraction is the cause for their disaster? The infraction resulting in not being qualified? My a.. foot. 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 Dec 14 00:39:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDDaet04367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:36:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDDaYH04363 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:36:35 +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 fBDDTHi20182 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:29:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011213081316.00b7c7d0@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, 13 Dec 2001 08:31:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:02 PM 12/12/01, David wrote: >If my opponents bid something from which I am in a position to extract a >penalty of 800, while if they had not bid it I would be unable to score >more than 650, in what way have my opponents damaged my side? Once you have failed to extract that 800 penalty, the probability of your having done so is zero. So we can rephrase the question as: If my opponents have bid something from which someone else would have been able to extract 800, while if they had not bid it I would have been unable to score more than 650, in what way have my opponents damaged my side? Answer: By depriving me of the opportunity to score 650, which was better than my actual result. There was damage. It would not have occurred absent the opponents' infraction. Why should the mere fact that there would almost certainly not have been damage to another pair holding my cards in the same situation matter? >When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to >achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to >achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in >damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I >can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely >(quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved >without the infraction. > >But when they commit an infraction that leaves me able to achieve a >result worth more than any I would have been able to achieve absent the >infraction, the infraction cannot reasonably be said to have resulted in >damage. Instead, it has resulted in advantage to my side. If I then fail >to achieve that superior result through my own ineptitude, the damage >has followed the infraction, but has not followed from the infraction - >in Kaplan's phrase, the damage was subsequent to, but not consequent >upon, the infraction. This is the crux of David's argument, and I don't buy it. Saying that there might not have been damage, or that there should not have been damage, is not the same thing as saying that there wasn't damage. >Now, in order to say that the causal link between infraction and damage >has been broken, we apply a test that varies from jurisdiction to >jurisdiction, but is in all cases relatively generous as far as the >non-offending side is concerned. We do not require merely that the NOS >has acted foolishly or carelessly in passing up the superior score >offered - we require that its shortcomings have been "egregious", or >"irrational". Of, in the ACBL, that they have "failed to play bridge". Perhaps our TDs and ACs just have trouble with four-syllable words. >A couple of examples may illustrate the kind of thinking involved: if my >opponents commit some infraction and arrive in 7NT against which I am on >lead with an ace, then if the contract makes, it is safe to say that my >side has taken some egregious action, and its table result should stand >(though the offenders will, in my country at least, receive the score >they would have received without the infraction). But if it is my >partner who has the ace, and if I fail to lead the correct suit - >however obvious the lead may be from the auction - then the result for >both sides will be adjusted to what would have happened without the >infraction (this is an over-simplification of L12, but it will do for >the present). If you fail to take your ace, you should suffer the consequences of failing to take your ace, whatever they may be absent the opponents' infraction. If the opponents get the contract rolled back to one that puts you in a position to fail to take your ace, you should suffer the consequences of failing to take your ace. I don't believe that you should suffer additional consequences for failing to take your ace against a contract that was a consequence of your opponents' infraction. >This, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of disagreement as >to what constitutes "egregious" action. I wonder - if my LHO opened 3D, >showing by his methods a long diamond suit headed by AKQ, and if my >opponents then arrived through some infraction in 7NT, doubled by my >partner, would it be egregious for me to lead a diamond? It is the possibility of disagreement that is troubling, because it means, perforce, that a given player in a given situation cannot expect to receive the same ruling from two different TDs or ACs. Wouldn't it be better not to have to worry about it? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 00:41:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDDd3J04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:39:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDDcvH04369 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:38:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA17333; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:31:40 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 14:28:57 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 <01KBTMSYQ4T4002O5K@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:31:05 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:31:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:31:03 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'David Burn'" , 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fBDDcxH04370 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David B: > Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a > £50 note. I > thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while > attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which > contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been > damaged by the > stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to > restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? Didn't you use that before? Be creative David. May be you changed the value? Thinking about my soccer example I might have a further proposal to the FIFA. The undeserved advantage should be taken away from the offenders. So the Dutch miss the penalty kick for 0 - 0 but the opponents are 0 - 1. Still the penalty session to decide whether the Dutch are going to win the match. None of the teams qualifying. And when after the penalty has been given the umpire looking at the video at midtime gets convinced that there was no infraction he apologizes and offers both teams a 1 - 0 lead. Not a very exiting second half and both teams qualify. (sorry, sorry). 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 Dec 14 00:59:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDDtHe04403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDDtBH04399 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:55:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA03939; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:47:54 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 13 14:45:08 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 <01KBTNCU3Y2I002OYG@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:47:07 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:47:02 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:46:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion 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 Eric: > This is the crux of David's argument, and I don't buy it. > Saying that > there might not have been damage, or that there should not have been > damage, is not the same thing as saying that there wasn't damage. Who did say that? Not David, not me. Yes there was damage, but subsequent. Are you going to tell me that you live with a beautiful answer on a beautiful letter for 28 years now, and still don't accept it? Poor guy. 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 Dec 14 01:04:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDE1e804423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDE1YH04419 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:01:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-132-253.btinternet.com ([213.122.132.253] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EWJV-0006in-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:54:18 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c183dd$8cfebb80$fd847ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011213080607.00ac3a80@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:53:29 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > I fully agree. I'd love to see out lawmakers bury the whole "egregious > error" mess, and go back to applying the words of L12C2 as written: > "the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that > was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Period. Consequent, > schmonsequent. Sadly, one does not turn to 12C2 unless in the course of ruling under some other Law. For the purposes of the present discussion, that Law is 16A2, which is used when the director "considers that an infraction of Law has resulted in damage". Now, if the director follows the principles laid down by Kaplan and followed, to a greater or lesser extent by Kooijman and directors the world over (excepting, perhaps, parts of New Zealand and West Hampstead), he will not consider that an infraction that has given the other side a realistic chance at an excellent score has "resulted in damage", for it has not. It should be pointed out that words such as "egregious error" or "wild and gambling action" are not part of the Laws, and thus not necessarily the creation of "the lawmakers" if by this is meant the WBFLC. Rather, they are an attempt to create a guideline that will enable a determination as to whether an infraction has actually resulted in damage, or whether the damage is a result not of the infraction, but of subsequent foolishness by the non-offending side. It might also be remarked that these guidelines create a framework within which there is no expectation that a non-offending side plays "good" or even "normal" bridge. There is an awareness that a side which feels that it has been placed in a position that it "should never have been in" will not necessarily function at its best. That is why redress is given unless the NOS performs so badly that, even after due allowance has been made for the circumstances, it is considered that the NOS is undeserving of redress. And that is as it should be - as I may have mentioned before, if you play awful bridge, you should get awful results. 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 Dec 14 01:06:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDE3N304429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:03:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDE3HH04425 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:03:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-132-253.btinternet.com ([213.122.132.253] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EWL8-00070c-00; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:55:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01c183dd$c9446b80$fd847ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:55:10 -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 Ton wrote: >Didn't you use that before? Be creative David. May be you changed the value? I don't recall it, but like you, I have had this discussion many times, and it is possible that I may have forgotten much of what I have previously said on the subject. But if I have used the analogy before, that at least indicates a degree of self-consistency! 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 Dec 14 01:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDE6ka04450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:06:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDE6eH04446 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:06:41 +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 fBDDxNi22642 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:59:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011213084603.00b5dd00@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, 13 Dec 2001 09:01:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:19 AM 12/13/01, Koojiman wrote: >As long as you stay in New Zealand, beautiful country I heard, and don't >tell this to your administrators, you might survive. You even may use a >lawbook there in which you can find 'resultant damage' and defining it >your >way, as far as I am concerned. The question whether you should post your >ideas on BLML is another one. (I know dear David S, this doesn't sound >very >friendly. Can you offer some comfort? Kojak is not the right man to ask). Funny, I can't find "consequent damage", "subsequent damage" or "resultant damage" in any lawbook I have. The currently accepted interpretation that allows denial of redress due to a NO's error says that the lawmakers, when they wrote the straightforward and easy-to-apply words of L12C2, actually intended rulings under that law to be based on complex and difficult distinctions between various "types" of damage, none of which are even mentioned in TFLB. That interpretation is based on concepts which have no basis in the words of the law, which speaks only of "damage". It manufactures the nonsensical notion that certain types of damage are not damage. 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 Dec 14 01:31:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDEUCh07578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:30:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDEU6H07567 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:30:06 +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 fBDEMmK44324 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:22:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011213090908.00b5c970@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, 13 Dec 2001 09:25:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:02 AM 12/14/01, Wayne wrote: >Unfortunately the language in the law is '...results in...'. But neither that language, nor any comparable language, appears in L12. Where it does appear, it is in the context of requiring an infraction that results in damage in order for L12C to be applicable. Either there was an infraction resulting in damage, in which case L12C applies, or there wasn't, in which case it doesn't. Once we get to applying L12C, that determination has already been made; nothing in L12C suggests that we then need to address it any further. None of the laws that use "results in" language suggest the possibility of applying L12 to the NOS but not to the OS. An infraction must "result in" damage before any score adjustment can be made for either side. L12C itself, interpretation aside, provides only one circumstance in which it is appropriate to adjust for the OS but not for the NOS, namely when the table result is "the most favorable result [for the NOS] that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" but worse (for the NOS) than "the most unfavorable result [for the OS] that was at all probable". 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 Dec 14 01:35:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDEXo708333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:33:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDEXiH08318 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:33:44 +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 fBDEQRi25048 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:26:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011213092645.00b57300@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, 13 Dec 2001 09:28:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <002b01c183dd$8cfebb80$fd847ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011213080607.00ac3a80@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:53 AM 12/13/01, David wrote: >as I may have >mentioned before, if you play awful bridge, you should get awful >results. This is true, but doesn't justify the argument that if you play awful bridge against cheaters you should get worse awful results than you would have gotten against non-cheaters. 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 Dec 14 02:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDFGo609488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:16:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDFGhH09481 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:16:44 +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 16EXU9-000GpX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:09:25 +0000 Message-ID: <$XrOEpCqqJG8Ewv+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:10:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >Wayne: > >> Maybe - what am I supposed to do, bow down and worship. >> >> No not if I don't think that this is what the law says. >> >> If at worst my score is +/- 30 points before an infraction >> and I am put in a >> position where I might lose 100s and I do then I most >> certainly feel I am >> damaged and damaged by the opponents infraction even if I did >> contribute. >> >> People make mistakes. But if the opponent's infraction >> increases the cost >> of my mistake then I call that damage - 'resultant damage' using the >> terminology of the law. >> > >As long as you stay in New Zealand, beautiful country I heard, and don't >tell this to your administrators, you might survive. You even may use a >lawbook there in which you can find 'resultant damage' and defining it your >way, as far as I am concerned. The question whether you should post your >ideas on BLML is another one. (I know dear David S, this doesn't sound very >friendly. Can you offer some comfort? Kojak is not the right man to ask). My understanding is that no posts on this list bear the stamp of officialdom. Surely, one or two claim to, but so what? Thus I think Wayne's views and your views, Ton, have an equal right to be here. As to the value of certain posts, I think that is for the reader. Some people attempt to convince their reader: some people ask questions: some people explain: some people dictate: some people are nice: some people are not: some people tell people what they should think with no explanation: some people care what others think: others don't: some people's views are sensible: others are not: some people's views are based on logic and the Laws: others are not. Which is best? Who knows? Any choice between these is personal. For example, I think posts that explain why something is so are much more useful than posts that say something is so with no explanation or basis in the laws whatever. But that is my view solely. -- 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 Dec 14 02:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDFGr509491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:16:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDFGlH09486 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:16:47 +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 16EXU8-000GpW-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:56:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >perhaps we should define egregious as "beyond even the abilities of Mrs. >Guggenheim". My own view is that we are far too harsh on the NOs as to >what constitutes, in the UK haphazard, wild, gambling or in the US >egregious. The NO's have had to call the TD in because their opponents >are cheating. Do you expect them to play good bridge? Their pulse rate >has gone from 90-130 from the adrenaline surge, they're hyper- >ventilating (I've seen it many times) - come on guys, we should be >protecting them, and bending over backwards to do so. Interesting. This is the man who does not like the English approach, which is to be far easier on NOs! Perhaps, John, you would like to convince me that the English approach is harsh. Incidentally, I notice you use the term UK. Do you know whether Scotland and Northern Ireland follow the English interpretation? Does anyone out there know? Certainly Wales follows 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 Dec 14 02:27:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDFPaO09512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:25:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDFPVH09508 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:25:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-13-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.13.169]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EXcj-0002ri-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:13 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:10 +0000 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 fBDFPXH09509 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:31 pm +0000 13/12/01, David Burn wrote: > > >Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a £50 note. I >thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while >attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which >contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been damaged by the >stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to >restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? > This seems a very poor analogy indeed. The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my original ownership of the £50. The police who have been called appear to be siding with the swindler. I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, thankyou. -- -- 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 Dec 14 03:13:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDGBcc09579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:11:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDGBXH09575 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:11:33 +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 LAA17423 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA27347 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:04:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:04:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112131604.LAA27347@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and > now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my > mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my > original ownership of the £50. I think Gordon's is a very good analogy. Imagine that Gordon and I are partners, and after the infraction, but before the ensuing play, our non-playing captain could be called in to look over the position and decide whether to take the penalty or have us play on. If he sees that the infraction has put us in an enviable position, and all we have to do is follow suit to gain from the infraction, he will surely have us play on. Of course he will be disappointed when I revoke and give back more than the advantage we would have gained, but he won't see anything wrong with the ruling or with his own decision. In effect, the TD or AC is in the position of deciding what the NPC would have done, given an opportunity to decide. > I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, thankyou. If I'm in a good position to gain, I'd rather take doubles. Sorry, Gordon. (I wonder whether "have the NPC decide" might some day be practical, perhaps in online play. Probably not, but it's an interesting thought. People acquainted with American football will see an analogy in that game.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 03:21:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDGJXL09595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:19:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDGJSH09591 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:19:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-34-53.btinternet.com ([213.122.34.53] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EYSw-00072K-00; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:12:10 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:11:20 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a £50 note. I >thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while >attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which >contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been damaged by the >stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to >restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? >This seems a very poor analogy indeed. >The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my original ownership of the £50. The police who have been called appear to be siding with the swindler. >I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, thankyou. I am absolutely baffled by the foregoing - indeed, it has been the first time in my experience that a contribution to this list has made no shred of any kind of sense whatsoever (and I have read Herman's views on system disclosure). You don't appear to have understood a word of what I wrote, which is no doubt why you don't think it was a very good analogy. We will try once more. Someone offers you £50. Not £50 that was yours already, but his £50 as a free gift (analogous to the position where your opponents bid 5H over 4S). The offer is made in good faith - the man is a philanthropist, not a swindler. You accept the offer, and he hands over the £50 (analogous to your double of 5H, which will bring you 800 and a top provided you do not, within the next few minutes, do something ridiculous). Instead of pocketing the £50, thus being £50 better off, you drop not only his £50 but yours down the drain (analogous to your finding a ridiculous defence to 5H doubled, thus scoring a bottom and not a top). You expect the director (or a policeman) to give you back your 620 from 4S (analogous to expecting someone to return to you the £50 that was already yours, which you have dropped down the drain together with the bonus £50). Your expectations are, in my view, unrealistic. 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 Dec 14 03:32:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDGVOo09613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:31:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDGVJH09609 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:31:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-34-53.btinternet.com ([213.122.34.53] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EYeQ-0001AI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c183f2$77a65bc0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011213080607.00ac3a80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011213092645.00b57300@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:23:13 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > >as I may have > >mentioned before, if you play awful bridge, you should get awful > >results. > > This is true, but doesn't justify the argument that if you play awful > bridge against cheaters you should get worse awful results than you > would have gotten against non-cheaters. That isn't really the argument. If you play bridge against people who bid 5H over 4S, affording you an opportunity to score 800 for a top, and you mess it up and score only 500 for a bottom, it does not (or should not) really matter from your point of view whether they have bid 5H because they are cheats, or because they are idiots, or because they have simply misjudged on this occasion. If you play bridge against overbidders, you will get worse results if you misdefend than you would have got against non-overbidders - but that is life, and so is the case you describe. 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 Dec 14 04:36:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDHaHD09669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 04:36:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDHaAH09665 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 04:36:11 +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 RAA18717 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:29:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:27:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >>Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a £50 note. I >>thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while >>attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which >>contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been damaged by the >>stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to >>restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? > >>This seems a very poor analogy indeed. > >>The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and >now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my >mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my >original ownership of the £50. The police who have been called appear >to be siding with the swindler. > >>I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, >thankyou. > >I am absolutely baffled by the foregoing - indeed, it has been the first >time in my experience that a contribution to this list has made no shred >of any kind of sense whatsoever (and I have read Herman's views on >system disclosure). You don't appear to have understood a word of what I >wrote, which is no doubt why you don't think it was a very good analogy. >We will try once more. > >Someone offers you £50. Not £50 that was yours already, but his £50 as a >free gift (analogous to the position where your opponents bid 5H over >4S). The offer is made in good faith - the man is a philanthropist, not >a swindler. > >You accept the offer, and he hands over the £50 (analogous to your >double of 5H, which will bring you 800 and a top provided you do not, >within the next few minutes, do something ridiculous). > >Instead of pocketing the £50, thus being £50 better off, you drop not >only his £50 but yours down the drain (analogous to your finding a >ridiculous defence to 5H doubled, thus scoring a bottom and not a top). > >You expect the director (or a policeman) to give you back your 620 from >4S (analogous to expecting someone to return to you the £50 that was >already yours, which you have dropped down the drain together with the >bonus £50). Your expectations are, in my view, unrealistic. > >David Burn >London, England > I don't like the analogy, and I'd expect my £50-00 back, even if not the £100-00. cheers john > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Dec 14 05:09:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDI9IH09695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:09:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDI9DH09691 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:09:14 +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 fBDI1vB17281 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:01:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002b01c18400$281f7060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:01:03 -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 From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > perhaps we should define egregious as "beyond even the abilities of Mrs. > Guggenheim". My own view is that we are far too harsh on the NOs as to > what constitutes, in the UK haphazard, wild, gambling or in the US > egregious. The NO's have had to call the TD in because their opponents > are cheating. Do you expect them to play good bridge? Their pulse rate > has gone from 90-130 from the adrenaline surge, they're hyper- > ventilating (I've seen it many times) - come on guys, we should be > protecting them, and bending over backwards to do so. > This has bothered me too, as I have experienced that adrenaline surge myself many times. If the TD is convinced that an irrational action may have been caused by emotional upset related to the infraction, he is at liberty to adjust for the NOS. That would be rare, necessarily, because anyone could then claim "I only revoked because I was upset." The problem would be greatly reduced if players were taught to follow good procedure, staying calm meanwhile: 1) Obtain agreement about the UI when it occurs, calling the TD at that time only if there is no agreement *and* it is possible that the TD will decide there was UI. In other words, don't waste time and generate adrenaline by arguing the point fruitlessly and/or calling the TD with little hope of success. 2) Assuming agreement, don't call the TD until there is evidence of an irregularity, which, for dummy, can only be at sight of the dummy or, for anyone else, at the end of play (footnote to L16A2). More often than not it will be apparent that there was no irregularity. New players should be given a little booklet that includes an explanation of Laws relating to MI and UI. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 05:16:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDIGVZ09721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:16:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDIGPH09717 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:16:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-13-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.13.169]) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EaI7-0005Wv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:09:07 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:09:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 fBDIGRH09718 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:11 pm +0000 13/12/01, David Burn wrote: > >Suppose someone comes up to me in the street and gives me a £50 note. I >>thank him politely, extract my wallet from my jacket pocket, and while >>attempting to put the £50 in my wallet, drop it (and the wallet, which >>contained an additional £50) down the drain. Have I been damaged by the >>stranger's offer? Should he (or some arbitrator) feel compelled to >>restore either my original £50 or the note he gave me? > >>This seems a very poor analogy indeed. > >>The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and >now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my >mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my >original ownership of the £50. The police who have been called appear >to be siding with the swindler. > >>I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, >thankyou. > >I am absolutely baffled by the foregoing - indeed, it has been the first >time in my experience that a contribution to this list has made no shred >of any kind of sense whatsoever (and I have read Herman's views on >system disclosure). You don't appear to have understood a word of what I >wrote, which is no doubt why you don't think it was a very good analogy. >We will try once more. I understood what you wrote. Simply repeating it with a few words changed won't make it a more accurate description of the situation. I note that the only other response so far does not think my post makes no sense. You seem to think that we should ignore the infraction and only consider the situation which developed after that time. Your analogy would be a good description of such a situation if the infraction had never taken place, or if we wished to ignore the infraction. > >You expect the director (or a policeman) to give you back your 620 from >4S (analogous to expecting someone to return to you the £50 that was >already yours, which you have dropped down the drain together with the >bonus £50). Your expectations are, in my view, unrealistic. > >David Burn >London, England No, I expect the director to recognise that in spite of my poor defence against an illegitimate 5H contract, I might have made my legitimate 4S contract. In fact directors do recognise this, and so the defence needs to be appalling indeed (worse than mere fumbling in the proximity of drains) for them not to give me back my 620. Which is why yours was not a good analogy of the situation. -- -- 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 Dec 14 05:18:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDIIjR09735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:18:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBDIIeH09731 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:18:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27706 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 18:11:24 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.379745 secs); 13 Dec 2001 18:11:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.6) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 18:11:22 -0000 Message-ID: <021b01c184b0$84e81f80$ef15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:03:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Wayne Burrows' ; Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:19 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Wayne: > > > Maybe - what am I supposed to do, bow down and worship. > > > > No not if I don't think that this is what the law says. > > > > If at worst my score is +/- 30 points before an infraction > > and I am put in a > > position where I might lose 100s and I do then I most > > certainly feel I am > > damaged and damaged by the opponents infraction even if I did > > contribute. > > > > People make mistakes. But if the opponent's infraction > > increases the cost > > of my mistake then I call that damage - 'resultant damage' using the > > terminology of the law. > > > > As long as you stay in New Zealand, beautiful country I heard, and don't > tell this to your administrators, you might survive. You even may use a > lawbook there in which you can find 'resultant damage' and defining it your > way, as far as I am concerned. The actual wording is '... resulted in damage.' and "resultant damage" is my paraphrase. And the lawbook here is an International one promulgated by the WBF. Subsequently WBF come along and defined 'black' as 'white' and in my opinion makes little or no effort to promulgate that interpretation to all users of their own Law book. I don't think for example NZCBA receives a copy of all of these interpretations. How is one supposed to rule when ones only resources are the official rule book and some vague memories of discussions heard or read lieing around the place somewhere. Even the language of 'consequent' and 'subsequent' I don't think is well used here, for example: 1s P* 4s 5h** x All pass * hesitation ** subsequently determined to be an illegal alternative. Question: >From which bid is it a consequence that we score +500 (even if +800 is available) ? Answer: This result is only available from defending so it must be consequent on the illegal 5h call. Further the type of ruling that you asked whether or not is routine at the beginning of this thread is full of contradiction if you use this WBF interpretation that so many seem so fond of. 1. You rule according to L16B2 and interpretations that the infraction has resulted in no damage. 2. Yet you want to adjust the score, an action that is reserve for hands on which there is damage. 3. You refer to L12A and perhaps some interpretation thereof and with regard to the NOS you award them "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". NO! you give them some result that was impossible without the irregularity. Or perhaps a weighting of impossible results. >The question whether you should post your > ideas on BLML is another one. Why? (I know dear David S, this doesn't sound very > friendly. Can you offer some comfort? Kojak is not the right man to ask). I agree with these sentiment. :-> > > ton > > > > Wayne > > > > -- Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 05:20:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDIKNC09747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:20:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDIKIH09743 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:20:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-13-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.13.169]) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EaLt-0002Cq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:13:01 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200112131604.LAA27347@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200112131604.LAA27347@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:12:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 fBDIKKH09744 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:04 am -0500 13/12/01, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Gordon Rainsford >> The £50 note was already mine. I have been swindled out of it, and >> now the person responsible is offering me double-or-quits if I put my >> mind to some entirely new problem which was not a condition of my >> original ownership of the £50. > >I think Gordon's is a very good analogy. Imagine that Gordon and I are >partners, and after the infraction, but before the ensuing play, our >non-playing captain could be called in to look over the position and >decide whether to take the penalty or have us play on. If he sees that >the infraction has put us in an enviable position, and all we have to >do is follow suit to gain from the infraction, he will surely have us >play on. Of course he will be disappointed when I revoke and give back >more than the advantage we would have gained, but he won't see anything >wrong with the ruling or with his own decision. > >In effect, the TD or AC is in the position of deciding what the NPC >would have done, given an opportunity to decide. > >> I'd rather be able to reject the offer and get my property back, thankyou. > >If I'm in a good position to gain, I'd rather take doubles. Sorry, >Gordon. Fair enough Steve, but I don't suppose you would like to be forced to take doubles when you aren't in a good position to gain? -- -- 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 Dec 14 06:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDJTRk17151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:29:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBDJTIH17118 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:29:19 +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 fBDJM2B23342 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:22:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007501c1840b$51eedd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011212164226.00b7ccb0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011213080607.00ac3a80@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:18:20 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > I'd love to see out lawmakers bury the whole "egregious > error" mess, and go back to applying the words of L12C2 as written: > "the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that > was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Period. Consequent, > schmonsequent. > I second the motion, provided that the asssumed play of the cards for an adjusted contract (same denomination, same declarer) is not amended if the play was obviously not related to the irregularity (or the level of contract resulting from it). This does leave open the "double shot" possibility, the NOS taking a wild or gambling action with the knowledge that if it doesn't work they will probably get redress. We can't have that, so "period" really won't work. 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 Dec 14 06:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDJTem17193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:29:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDJTUH17169 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:29:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-151-13.btinternet.com ([213.122.151.13] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16EbQb-0005Dc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:21:57 +0000 Message-ID: <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:20:56 -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 Gordon wrote: >I understood what you wrote. Simply repeating it with a few words changed won't make it a more accurate description of the situation. I note that the only other response so far does not think my post makes no sense. Quite so - apologies for previous intemperate language. You would think that by know I ought to know better than to get involved in this discussion for about the fiftieth time - one invariably ends up preaching to either the converted or the unconvertible. >You seem to think that we should ignore the infraction and only consider the situation which developed after that time. Your analogy would be a good description of such a situation if the infraction had never taken place, or if we wished to ignore the infraction. I don't consider we should ignore the infraction at all. We should consider the infraction to determine whether the NOS were placed in a position such that without it, they would always be in a position to score better than with it. If so, then it has certainly done damage. Even if the NOS were placed in a position where, without the infraction, they would have been at all likely to score better than with it, then it has done damage. Only if the infraction has placed the NOS in a position where they are very likely indeed to score better than without it, failing to do so only throught their own sheer folly, do we conclude that it has not done damage (well, some of us do, at least). >No, I expect the director to recognise that in spite of my poor defence against an illegitimate 5H contract, I might have made my legitimate 4S contract. In fact directors do recognise this, and so the defence needs to be appalling indeed (worse than mere fumbling in the proximity of drains) for them not to give me back my 620. Which is why yours was not a good analogy of the situation. "Dropped down the drain" was a metaphor for "irrecoverably lost", one that is in fairly common English parlance. I am sorry if it was not clearly understood. I am talking only about defences that are "appalling indeed" when referring to the kind of error that is sufficient to deprive the NOS of redress. As to the hyperventilating bit (will deal with this here rather than start another post), let us suppose that my opponent drinks my beer. Now, he has clearly committed an infraction, since what he has done will interfere with my enjoyment of the game (L74A2). If I then misdefend against him, am I entitled to an adjusted score? 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 Dec 14 07:17:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDKGnE26335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:16:50 +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 fBDKGeH26307 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:16:41 +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 PAA01753 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:09:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA27625 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:09:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:09:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112132009.PAA27625@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > Fair enough Steve, but I don't suppose you would like to be forced to > take doubles when you aren't in a good position to gain? No, of course not, but that's not the subject under discussion. If the infraction is inevitably or even "at all probably" going to damage me, of course I want redress. Think about our NPC in my imaginary world. He sees that we can get 800 if I find the right lead, and then you make a good guess, and maybe declarer has to guess wrong, too. Well, NPC has seen my leads before, so he asks for play to be stopped, and we take the penalty. As far as I can tell, everyone who has posted agrees with the above. The question is whether *at the moment just after the infraction* the NOS has gained or lost. If it looks like a big gain, I want to play on, not take the penalty. The difficulty we have is that the "play on or take penalty" decision is made only after the deal is over. If I knew that *on this deal* I'm about to play worse than Mrs. Guggenheim, then I'd be happy to take the penalty instead. But (in spite of what my partners may say) that isn't the expectation at the moment of the infraction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 10:27:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDNR8s14288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:27:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBDNQxH14269 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:26:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-151-13.btinternet.com ([213.122.151.13] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Ead8-0007Oj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:30:51 +0000 Message-ID: <008e01c18404$2dd11fa0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002b01c18400$281f7060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:29:14 -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 Marvin wrote: > New players should be given a little booklet that includes an explanation of > Laws relating to MI and UI. I calculate that some of the world's foremost bridge jurisprudents have, in recent days on this list alone, expended upwards of 100,000 words in an attempt to discover what the Laws relating to UI and MI actually say. By whom will this "little booklet" be written? 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 Dec 14 10:59:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBDNwdc20138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:58:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBDNwQH20104 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:58:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-65-146.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.65.146] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16EfaO-000DhR-00; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:48:21 +0000 Message-ID: <00e901c18431$3a1679e0$9241e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200112121538.KAA19234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:42:04 -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: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 - footnote, was Law 27B3 > (By the way, my copy of the ACBL edition, received 1997 November, shows > no indication of being a second printing, and it has the 25B footnote.) > -- +=+ I realize belatedly that probably the text I am thinking of did not actually go to print. ~ 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 Dec 14 11:53:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE0r0A00756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:53:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBE0qrH00735 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:52:53 +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 LAA27564 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:55:48 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:45:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] the Little Booklet To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:42:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/12/2001 11:36:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: >>New players should be given a little booklet that includes an >>explanation of Laws relating to MI and UI. David Burn replied: >I calculate that some of the world's foremost bridge >jurisprudents have, in recent days on this list alone, expended >upwards of 100,000 words in an attempt to discover what the >Laws relating to UI and MI actually say. By whom will this >"little booklet" be written? The Laws of Bridge are in a "little booklet". One of its rare successes in being comprehensible is in the footnote to Law 75. When Grattan, ton and others rewrite the Little Booklet, can I add a plea that this time *all* laws are written in plain English, supplemented by examples where necessary. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 12:08:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE18gj03782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:08:42 +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.pinehurst.net (smtp2.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE18TH03743 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:08:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-257.connectnc.net [63.160.175.67]) by smtp2.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA22549 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:01:49 -0500 Message-ID: <002701c1843a$11e3dcc0$43afa03f@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Winter greetings Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:55:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C18410.2822D880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C18410.2822D880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have just received a message that my winter greeting card has been = picked up. I have not sent a card yet for this year so if you got it, = would you please let me know. I might be a victim of a virus again. My = machine scans clean, though... Thank you. =20 Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C18410.2822D880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have just received a message = that my=20 winter greeting card has been picked up.  I have not sent a card = yet for=20 this year so if you got it, would you please let me know.  I might = be a=20 victim of a virus again.  My machine scans clean, though... Thank=20 you. 
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C18410.2822D880-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 12:29:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE1TO806275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:29:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE1TFH06252 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:29:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-8-188.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.8.188]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Eh2z-0003Wc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:21:57 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:21:49 +0000 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:20 pm +0000 13/12/01, David Burn wrote: > You would think >that by know I ought to know better than to get involved in this >discussion for about the fiftieth time - one invariably ends up >preaching to either the converted or the unconvertible. > But you also end up talking to those of us who are neither converted nor unconvertible because it is the first time we have been involved in this discussion. I hope that has some value in this forum. -- -- 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 Dec 14 14:00:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE30Ep23917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:00:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBE305H23890 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:00:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22934 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2001 02:52:48 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 0.953685 secs); 14 Dec 2001 02:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.204) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 14 Dec 2001 02:52:47 -0000 Message-ID: <000701c184f9$5dfefe40$cc16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:45:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has > resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. No it is both. With stupidity alone I can not score +500 playing in 4s and whilst after the opponents infraction I don't have to score +500. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 15:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE44QX04141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:04:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBE44HH04116 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:04:18 +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 fBE3v1B05778 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:57:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008e01c18452$e066c220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <006b01c1839e$ca69fe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002b01c18400$281f7060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c18404$2dd11fa0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:50:04 -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" > Marvin wrote: > > > New players should be given a little booklet that includes an > explanation of > > Laws relating to MI and UI. > > I calculate that some of the world's foremost bridge jurisprudents have, > in recent days on this list alone, expended upwards of 100,000 words in > an attempt to discover what the Laws relating to UI and MI actually say. > By whom will this "little booklet" be written? > Of course I meant a brief "player's explanation," not something that tells a TD what to do. --If your partner hesitates markedly, don't.... --If an opponent hesitates markedly, then... --Try to have a good grasp of what your partnership agreements are, because... Stuff like that. In fact, as some have said before, the Laws could be condensed to omit what TDs are supposed to do, leaving just proper procedures for players. What need does a player have to know the intricacies of L12? How much would be left? 30%? Maybe a good title: *Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge for Players*. And please let's have no one suggest "for Dummies." 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 Dec 14 18:47:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE7l7j03865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:47:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBE7kwH03830 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:46:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10608 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2001 07:39:41 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.509264 secs); 14 Dec 2001 07:39:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.14) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 14 Dec 2001 07:39:39 -0000 Message-ID: <001101c18521$706ea940$0e18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:31:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Quite so - apologies for previous intemperate language. You would think > that by know I ought to know better than to get involved in this > discussion for about the fiftieth time - one invariably ends up > preaching to either the converted or the unconvertible. Perhaps that is the problem. > > >You seem to think that we should ignore the infraction and only > consider the situation which developed after that time. Your analogy > would be a good description of such a situation if the infraction had > never taken place, or if we wished to ignore the infraction. > > I don't consider we should ignore the infraction at all. We should > consider the infraction to determine whether the NOS were placed in a > position such that without it, they would always be in a position to > score better than with it. If so, then it has certainly done damage. > Even if the NOS were placed in a position where, without the infraction, > they would have been at all likely to score better than with it, then it > has done damage. Okay I agree so far. Only if the infraction has placed the NOS in a position > where they are very likely indeed to score better than without it, > failing to do so only throught their own sheer folly, do we conclude > that it has not done damage (well, some of us do, at least). Okay so in this case you cannot award an adjusted score ... ... to either side. L16A2 is clear - no damage - no basis for adjustment. This is either grossly unfair (offenders get off for free) or there is a distortion of logic to allow an adjustment for the OS. Also if there is damage, for example we can only get 100 off 5hx but we let that contract slip through then you would apply L12C2. In that case it is clear that the NOS get a favourable result without the infraction and without their slip-up, egregious or otherwise. The logic that is written in the laws (L16 and L12) is clear enough - at least to the converted that David mentions - L16A2 No damage => No adjustments to either side Damage => Adjust according to L12C2 for both sides L12C2 NOS => Adjust to a favourable likely result WITHOUT the infraction OS => something different but similar. IMO if it is intended that some different interpretation is required then these laws need to be re-written. IMO this is much better than issueing decrees that defy logic. FWIW I think that a NOS should be liable, at least in part, for their misdefense but I just cannot see how the laws as they are writtten allow that. However I think that the liability should be limited to the range of scores, or a combination of them, that were available without the infraction. And normally a lenient approach should be made to applying any such liability. This is because even an egregious error in one contract will not necessarily translate into any sort of error in a different contract. As one example that makes this obvious: If I misdefend 5hx and give up an unnecessary trick then without the infraction there is no basis to assume that we will make any sort of error if my partner was to be declarer in 4s. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 19:33:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE8X6G11764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:33:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE8WtH11743 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:32:56 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA02695; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:25:37 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 14 09:22:53 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 <01KBUQEJY7JO002QUZ@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:24:48 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:24:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:24:45 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Discussion 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 > > Eric wrote: > > > >as I may have > > >mentioned before, if you play awful bridge, you should get awful > > >results. > > > > This is true, but doesn't justify the argument that if you > play awful > > bridge against cheaters you should get worse awful results than you > > would have gotten against non-cheaters. This seems to be the normal way these discussions develop. No logic David. If we can't win it with decent arguments we introduce cheaters etc. Very convincing in some environments. ton > That isn't really the argument. If you play bridge against people who > bid 5H over 4S, affording you an opportunity to score 800 for > a top, and > you mess it up and score only 500 for a bottom, it does not (or should > not) really matter from your point of view whether they have bid 5H > because they are cheats, or because they are idiots, or because they > have simply misjudged on this occasion. If you play bridge against > overbidders, you will get worse results if you misdefend than > you would > have got against non-overbidders - but that is life, and so > is the case > you describe. > > 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 Fri Dec 14 19:47:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE8kmt14081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:46:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f43.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE8keH14059 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:46:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:39:18 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:39:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: bnewsr@blakjak.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:39:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2001 08:39:18.0047 (UTC) FILETIME=[D199AAF0:01C1847A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello from Northern Ireland. In principle we follow England when we understand/know what their position is. We would have very few decisions to make under this heading. I can only remember making one (in a Camrose match many moons ago) where players were as I remember trying to turn -180 into +110 based on action over a hesitation. Defending 1NT neither defender managed at any time to open a suit headed AK in one hand and QJT in the other. A bushel of points would have been garnered by Mrs Guggenheim.(Class of player anyone?) >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage >Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:56:51 +0000 > >John (MadDog) Probst writes > > >perhaps we should define egregious as "beyond even the abilities of Mrs. > >Guggenheim". My own view is that we are far too harsh on the NOs as to > >what constitutes, in the UK haphazard, wild, gambling or in the US > >egregious. The NO's have had to call the TD in because their opponents > >are cheating. Do you expect them to play good bridge? Their pulse rate > >has gone from 90-130 from the adrenaline surge, they're hyper- > >ventilating (I've seen it many times) - come on guys, we should be > >protecting them, and bending over backwards to do so. > > Interesting. This is the man who does not like the English approach, >which is to be far easier on NOs! Perhaps, John, you would like to >convince me that the English approach is harsh. > > Incidentally, I notice you use the term UK. Do you know whether >Scotland and Northern Ireland follow the English interpretation? Does >anyone out there know? Certainly Wales follows 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 14 20:37:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE9aD523519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:36:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE9a4H23502 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:36:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA05259; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:28:46 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 14 10:26:03 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 <01KBUSLRT89K002QXL@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:27:53 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:27:48 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:27:51 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , "Kooijman, A." , 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 Wayne: > How is one supposed to rule when ones only resources are the > official rule > book and some vague memories of discussions heard or read > lieing around the > place somewhere. ton: Well, it really depends on how vague you consider the contributions on BLML are. I try to be as clear as possible all the time, which is what you don't like either I understand. > > Even the language of 'consequent' and 'subsequent' I don't > think is well > used here, for example: > > 1s P* 4s 5h** > x All pass > > * hesitation > ** subsequently determined to be an illegal alternative. > > Question: > From which bid is it a consequence that we score +500 (even if +800 is > available) ? The concepts are not that easy to understand, I agree. Did you read 'Waterloo' in the meantime and did you try to understand the 50 british pounds story from David B. and my soccer disaster? That should help but if there is still no change or clue at all in your mind we better stick to our whiskey in our late evening debate. > Answer: > This result is only available from defending so it must be > consequent on the > illegal 5h call. > > Further the type of ruling that you asked whether or not is > routine at the > beginning of this thread is full of contradiction if you use this WBF > interpretation that so many seem so fond of. > > 1. You rule according to L16B2 and interpretations that the > infraction has > resulted in no damage. Did I, not that I know of, and it is certainly not what I meant to do. There certainly was damage and it could be split in damage resulting from an infraction by the opponents and damage as a result of terrible bridge (irresponsible behaviour: suppose somebody drives a car being as drunk as a not-to-be named-due-to-accusation-of-discrimination and causes an accident by which the car is total loss. The insurance company will not pay the damage on the car, though you deem the accident to be a consequence of having the car and driving with it.) > > 2. Yet you want to adjust the score, an action that is > reserve for hands on > which there is damage. > > 3. You refer to L12A Did I ?, not that I know of and I agree that we can't use 12C2 here: 'had the irregularity not occurred'. So indeed we need 12 A heading and A1 to justify our ruling. and perhaps some interpretation thereof > and with regard > to the NOS you award them "the most favourable result that > was likely had > the irregularity not occurred". NO! you give them some > result that was > impossible without the irregularity. Or perhaps a weighting > of impossible > results. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 20:41:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBE9fE424426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:41:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBE9f4H24386 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:41:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA26576; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:33:45 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 14 10:31:01 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 <01KBUSSEVMQS002OZ0@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:33:14 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:33:10 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:33:13 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , 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 David: > > > > Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has > > resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. Wayne: > No it is both. ton: Very good, we have made a huge step forward now, you agree with the concept of subsequent and consequent damage! Shall we admit that David wrote it like this in a last effort to let you confess that you understand the approach very well? With stupidity alone I can not score +500 > playing in 4s and > whilst after the opponents infraction I don't have to score +500. > > > Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 14 21:54:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEArv108100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:53:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBEArmH08075 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:53:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 11896 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2001 10:46:31 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.291081 secs); 14 Dec 2001 10:46:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.34) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 14 Dec 2001 10:46:30 -0000 Message-ID: <004201c1853b$8a0606e0$0e18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:38:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Wayne Burrows' ; Kooijman, A. ; Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:27 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Well, it really depends on how vague you consider the contributions on BLML > are. I try to be as clear as possible all the time, which is what you don't > like either I understand. You don't understand I am afraid. Clear is good. > The concepts are not that easy to understand, I agree. Did you read > 'Waterloo' No in the meantime and did you try to understand the 50 british > pounds story from David B. Yes and my soccer disaster? Yes That should help but if > there is still no change or clue at all in your mind we better stick to our > whiskey in our late evening debate. > > > > > > 1. You rule according to L16B2 and interpretations that the > > infraction has > > resulted in no damage. > > > > Did I, not that I know of, and it is certainly not what I meant to do. There > certainly was damage and it could be split in damage resulting from an > infraction by the opponents Then assign an adjusted score. >and damage as a result of terrible bridge Then we are unable to assign an adjusted score. L16A2 Infraction did not result in damage. But surely this conclusion logically must apply to both sides. > > > > 2. Yet you want to adjust the score, an action that is > > reserve for hands on > > which there is damage. > > > > 3. You refer to L12A Whoops 12C. > > Did I ?, not that I know of and I agree that we can't use 12C2 here: 'had > the irregularity not occurred'. So indeed we need 12 A heading and A1 to > justify our ruling. But L12A says to assign an adjusted score which should be done according to L12C2 shouldn't it? Certainly that is what the initial wording in L12C2 seem to imply - "When the director awards an ..." (now continueing with my paraphrase) ...this is how it is to be done. Also 12A1 is concerned with indemnity (my dictionary says security against damage or loss) and only applies to the NOS. And it is indemnity for a violation of law. On what basis do you adjust the OS 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 Fri Dec 14 22:05:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEB4lm10321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:04:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBEB4cH10288 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:04:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 16790 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2001 10:57:21 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 0.907378 secs); 14 Dec 2001 10:57:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.34) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 14 Dec 2001 10:57:20 -0000 Message-ID: <004a01c1853d$0defc080$0e18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:49:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Wayne Burrows' ; Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage > > David: > > > > > > Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has > > > resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. > > Wayne: > > > > No it is both. > > ton: > > Very good, we have made a huge step forward now, you agree with the concept > of subsequent and consequent damage! Shall we admit that David wrote it like > this in a last effort to let you confess that you understand the approach > very well? > No you are wrong. I have always believed that the loss has been because of an opponent's infraction and a misdefense. It is David et al that do not believe that: "But the infraction is not what has resulted in damage" My view is that: 1. The infraction has resulted in damage and 2. The I have contributed to that damage. L16A2 states that because the infraction has resulted in damage then an adjusted score is to be awarded. L12C2 gives the correct procedure for awarding such a score and that is that NOS gets most favourable likely result without the infraction. I also believe this is a bad procedure but I do not see a remedy in Law. However I do not believe that NOS should ever be lumbered with a table result outside and worse than the range of likely results that they would have achieved had the infraction not occurred. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 15 03:00:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEFxdT12694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 02:59:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBEFxTH12673 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 02:59:30 +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 PAA21356 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:52:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:50:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <004a01c1853d$0defc080$0e18b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <004a01c1853d$0defc080$0e18b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004a01c1853d$0defc080$0e18b9d2@laptop>, Wayne Burrows writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kooijman, A. >To: 'Wayne Burrows' ; >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:33 AM >Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage > > >> >> David: >> > > >> > > Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has >> > > resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. >> >> Wayne: >> >> >> > No it is both. >> >> ton: >> >> Very good, we have made a huge step forward now, you agree with the >concept >> of subsequent and consequent damage! Shall we admit that David wrote it >like >> this in a last effort to let you confess that you understand the approach >> very well? >> > >No you are wrong. I have always believed that the loss has been because of >an opponent's infraction and a misdefense. > >It is David et al that do not believe that: >"But the infraction is not what has resulted in damage" > >My view is that: > >1. The infraction has resulted in damage and > >2. The I have contributed to that damage. > >L16A2 states that because the infraction has resulted in damage then an >adjusted score is to be awarded. > >L12C2 gives the correct procedure for awarding such a score and that is that >NOS gets most favourable likely result without the infraction. > >I also believe this is a bad procedure but I do not see a remedy in Law. > >However I do not believe that NOS should ever be lumbered with a table >result outside and worse than the range of likely results that they would >have achieved had the infraction not occurred. With this I concur. To continue with a football match analogy. The offending sides' fans rip up the pitch during the half time break because their side has had 2 goals disallowed and so are only 1-0 up rather than 3-0 up, so we move to the pitch on the other side of the playing fields. This pitch is totally waterlogged and as a result it's a mudbath, not a football game. We, the non-offenders, reasonably complain that the conditions were so different that any result (except us winning the match) is just not reasonable. When the offenders (the cheating pair in my terminology) make us play in a different ball-park (wonderful mixed metaphor) we are not comparing like with like, but chalk with cheese. And so with the bridge hand. If we do well out of 5Hx then result stands, if not (regardless of *why*) we go back to 4S. cheers john > >Wayne > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 15 03:12:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEGCSH14769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 03:12:29 +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 fBEGCJH14747 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 03:12:20 +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 PAA21332 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:42:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:40:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 , Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> Eric wrote: >> >> > >as I may have >> > >mentioned before, if you play awful bridge, you should get awful >> > >results. >> > >> > This is true, but doesn't justify the argument that if you >> play awful >> > bridge against cheaters you should get worse awful results than you >> > would have gotten against non-cheaters. > >This seems to be the normal way these discussions develop. No logic David. >If we can't win it with decent arguments we introduce cheaters etc. Very >convincing in some environments. > >ton > This is not reasonable. here in blml, as indeed amongst the EBU TD's we talk about pairs who've cheated to 5H over 4S as shorthand. I don't think they're cheats but it places the mise on scene accurately for the rest of the discussion. I found the sentence logical and well argued, not at all emotive. cheers john > > > >> That isn't really the argument. If you play bridge against people who >> bid 5H over 4S, affording you an opportunity to score 800 for >> a top, and >> you mess it up and score only 500 for a bottom, it does not (or should >> not) really matter from your point of view whether they have bid 5H >> because they are cheats, or because they are idiots, or because they >> have simply misjudged on this occasion. If you play bridge against >> overbidders, you will get worse results if you misdefend than >> you would >> have got against non-overbidders - but that is life, and so >> is the case >> you describe. >> >> 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/ -- 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 Dec 15 04:31:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEHVCL26470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:31:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBEHV3H26454 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:31:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-184-20.btinternet.com ([213.1.184.20] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Ew3k-0005z0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:23:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c184c3$f885ec20$14b801d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:22:52 -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 Gordon wrote: > But you also end up talking to those of us who are neither converted > nor unconvertible because it is the first time we have been involved > in this discussion. I hope that has some value in this forum. I hope so too, and I hope that Ton and I may be forgiven the world-weariness that has crept into our contributions. What we are trying to say is this: an infraction that has resulted in a clear opportunity for profit to the non-offending side has not resulted in damage (Steve Willner's contribution regarding what the NOS's captain would wish them to do following the infraction is particularly helpful in this regard). Well, if it has not resulted in damage, then there is an end of the matter as far as L16A2 is concerned - it is not open to the NOS to damage themselves, and then to say: "We could not have damaged ourselves without this infraction, therefore it has resulted in damage". It is as if Manchester United were awarded a free kick on the half-way line. David Beckham steps up to take it, and miraculously strikes the ball into the net! Unfortunately, unaccustomed to being on the pitch at all these days, he has become disoriented, and the net into which he has struck it is his own. Now, if the Laws of bridge were to be applied to the game of football, should the own goal be disallowed on the basis that the foul leading to the free kick has "resulted in" damage to the non-offending side? 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 Dec 15 07:10:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBEK9lR27405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 07:09:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBEK9cH27384 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 07:09:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16EyXA-0001nj-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:02:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:59:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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 >Hello from Northern Ireland. In principle we follow England when we >understand/know what their position is. A wonderful answer ...... -- 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 Dec 15 20:06:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBF95vW09898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:05:57 +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-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 fBF95lH09894 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:05:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-3-77.5800-1.access.uk.worldonline.com ([62.64.130.77] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16FAeG-000DR9-00; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:58:25 +0000 Message-ID: <003501c18546$daac1480$4d82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <001101c184c3$f885ec20$14b801d5@pbncomputer> Subject: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:58:48 -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: Friday, December 14, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage ". > > It is as if Manchester United were awarded a free kick on > the half-way line. David Beckham steps up to take it, and > miraculously strikes the ball into the net! Unfortunately, > unaccustomed to being on the pitch at all these days, he > has become disoriented, and the net into which he has > struck it is his own. Now, if the Laws of bridge were to be > applied to the game of football, should the own goal be > disallowed on the basis that the foul leading to the free > kick has "resulted in" damage to the non-offending side? > +=+ As a Liverpool F C supporter I admire this example greatly. 2. It is also refreshing to see the words "resulted in" quoted. The concept of the damage resulting from the infraction is present in 16A2 and in 40C. Law 12C2 then provides a statement of how the score is to be adjusted if it is to be adjusted at all after an irregularity; 12C2 does not take into account anything at all to do with 'consequent' and 'subsequent'. It simply says " if the laws elsewhere trigger a score adjustment this is the way you do it", and it does not say anything at all about partial redress of the damage that has occurred, nor that all of the damage must be the result of the infraction to trigger the adjustment. Neither do 40C or 16A2 make this last stipulation. Law 12C3 provides scope for mitigating the bald effects of 12C2, and if we award an assigned adjusted score that does not carry out precisely the narrow requirements in 12C2 it is evidently done under the authority provided by 12C3. It has been the pronouncements of 'the authorities', led by Edgar Kaplan, that have introduced the division of the damage into 'consequent' and 'subsequent', and the concept that only the damage that is 'consequent' should be redressed to the NOS. The WBFLC changed its stance in relation to the OS, 30 August 1998, by saying that the OS is not to have the advantage of damage whether it is consequent or subsequent unless, in the latter case only, it derives solely from the good play of the OS. I believe that 'the authorities' have introduced principles that are desirable and therefore 'right' [and perhaps, posthumously, Edgar should be congratulated for his skilled recourse to 12C3. :-)) ]. Now I am leaving for a weekend seminar for top English TDs. Back tomorrow evening. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 15 21:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBF9wxj09926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:58:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBF9wmH09917 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:58:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.177]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBF9pPJ03752 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:51:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C19E3FE.5010209@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:35:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I don't like the analogy, and I'd expect my £50-00 back, even if not the > £100-00. cheers john > Analogies are a bad thing. But John, how can you expect your 50£ back, if the stranger has in no way influenced your losing them? So you might say you want your 620 back, but certainly not this 50£. The point of the analogy is that the stranger did not influence your losing the 100£. OK, had he not given you an extra 50£, you would have lost only 50, but that does not mean that he owes you for the extra 50. Now of course, bridge is not like that. The argument is well taken that the link is more tenuous in the bridge example. If the stranger had not given 50£, you would also have lost 50£. But if the OS had not bid 5H, you would not have had the opportunity of losing a trick through misdefence (because you would have been dummy). As I said, analogies are dangerous, and we must extract from them what we need. But for what it's worth, I side with David B, and I'm sure a majority on the list, including the top brass. "There is no consequent damage, and so no restitution, if the causal link only depends on "we would not have been here"". Maybe DB might try again with an example where someone forces you to travel by one underground line rather than another. "if he hadn't sent me via Picadilly, I would not have been there to be mugged, so I am sueing him for my lost money". -- 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 Dec 15 21:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBF9x0E09927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:59:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBF9wnH09919 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:58:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.177]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBF9pSJ03756 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:51:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C19E57E.1050405@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:41:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000701c184f9$5dfefe40$cc16b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has >>resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. >> > > No it is both. With stupidity alone I can not score +500 playing in 4s and > whilst after the opponents infraction I don't have to score +500. > > No Wayne, Gordon has apparently understood David, but you clearly haven't, and I shall repeat once more that you are wrong. Simply because you are in a position that you should not be in is no excuse for revoking. I'm deliberately using a very clear extreme so as to make you see that your position is quite clearly wrong. I am not entering a discussion as to how bad a subsequent error must be for it to no longer warrant redress, but your point seems to be that there can be NO such error. There can and there must. -- 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 Dec 15 21:13:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFADKf09954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:13:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBFADCH09950 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:13:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-119-129.btinternet.com ([213.122.119.129] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16FBhW-0002ic-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01c1854f$f6a4f180$81777ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <004201c1853b$8a0606e0$0e18b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:05:00 -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 Wayne wrote: > Then we are unable to assign an adjusted score. L16A2 Infraction did not > result in damage. > > But surely this conclusion logically must apply to both sides. [snip] > On what basis do you adjust the OS score? Now, here is a serious question. At present, I do not believe that the words of the Laws support the approach advocated by the WBFLC. I have read Ton's arguments and Grattan's, and I am not convinced. I think that if the current WBFLC approach is to be followed, then the words of (at least) L16A2 require a change. How, then, do I justify following the WBFLC approach and giving "Burn rulings" where both sides get awful results? Well, I don't actually need to justify doing what the WBFLC tells me to do, but I need to sleep at nights. So I follow the path from L16A2 to L12C2; I give the OS its rotten score; I then give the NOS, for a fleeting moment, the complement of that rotten score before using L12C3 to vary it in order to do equity. Equity, to my way of thinking, means: if you cheat, you get rotten scores, and if you play rotten bridge, you get rotten scores. 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 Dec 15 21:14:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFAElY09966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:14:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBFAEdH09962 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:14:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 30741 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2001 10:07:19 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.351018 secs); 15 Dec 2001 10:07:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.120) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 15 Dec 2001 10:07:18 -0000 Message-ID: <002f01c185ff$39365020$3418b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" , References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <001101c184c3$f885ec20$14b801d5@pbncomputer> <003501c18546$daac1480$4d82403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:59:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Burn ; Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Law 12C3 provides scope for > mitigating the bald effects of 12C2, and if we award an > assigned adjusted score that does not carry out > precisely the narrow requirements in 12C2 it is > evidently done under the authority provided by 12C3. > It has been the pronouncements of 'the authorities', > led by Edgar Kaplan, that have introduced the division > of the damage into 'consequent' and 'subsequent', and > the concept that only the damage that is 'consequent' > should be redressed to the NOS. The WBFLC changed > its stance in relation to the OS, 30 August 1998, by > saying that the OS is not to have the advantage of > damage whether it is consequent or subsequent unless, > in the latter case only, it derives solely from the good > play of the OS. I believe that 'the authorities' have > introduced principles that are desirable and therefore > 'right' [and perhaps, posthumously, Edgar should be > congratulated for his skilled recourse to 12C3. :-)) ]. L12C3 is not necessarily in action in all zones. So I guess the concepts of 'consequent' and 'subsequent' are not necessarily universal. L12C3 also includes the concept of equity. ... ... 'equity' before the infraction ... 'equity' after the infraction Whatever that means. > Now I am leaving for a weekend seminar for top > English TDs. Back tomorrow evening. > ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 15 21:37:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFAYir09980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:34:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBFAYZH09976 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:34:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-119-129.btinternet.com ([213.122.119.129] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16FC2F-0004Df-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:27:15 +0000 Message-ID: <006201c18552$f4fb31c0$81777ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <3C19E3FE.5010209@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:26:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >Analogies are a bad thing. This seems a little sweeping. I have often found them most helpful. >But John, how can you expect your 50£ back, if the stranger has in no way influenced your losing them? If he had not offered me another £50, I would not have removed my wallet and dropped it down the drain, so... but perhaps it is time to abandon this one. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 16 03:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFGNR428648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:23:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBFGNIH28625 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:23:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fBFGFtq24865 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:15:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:09:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004e01c1854f$f6a4f180$81777ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <20011215111600-R01010800-e9d5ac2b-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 12/15/01 at 10:05 AM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > How, then, do I justify following the WBFLC approach and giving "Burn > rulings" where both sides get awful results? Well, I don't actually need > to justify doing what the WBFLC tells me to do, but I need to sleep at > nights. So I follow the path from L16A2 to L12C2; I give the OS its > rotten score; I then give the NOS, for a fleeting moment, the complement > of that rotten score before using L12C3 to vary it in order to do > equity. Equity, to my way of thinking, means: if you cheat, you get > rotten scores, and if you play rotten bridge, you get rotten scores. An ACBL TD can't use L12C3 in this way. Are ACBL TDs to be consigned to sleepless nights, 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 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 16 05:58:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFIwL717630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 05:58:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBFIwDH17626 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 05:58:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12530 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2001 18:50:53 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.402137 secs); 15 Dec 2001 18:50:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.41) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 15 Dec 2001 18:50:51 -0000 Message-ID: <003d01c18648$5c5ab3e0$2918b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000701c184f9$5dfefe40$cc16b9d2@laptop> <3C19E57E.1050405@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:43:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >>Yes, I know it is. I can read! But the infraction is not what has > >>resulted in damage - it is my stupidity that has done this. > >> > > > > No it is both. With stupidity alone I can not score +500 playing in 4s and > > whilst after the opponents infraction I don't have to score +500. > > > > > > > No Wayne, > > Gordon has apparently understood David, but you clearly > haven't, I think I have - I just don't agree. and I shall repeat once more that you are wrong. > Simply because you are in a position that you should not be > in is no excuse for revoking. I'm deliberately using a very > clear extreme so as to make you see that your position is > quite clearly wrong. I am not entering a discussion as to > how bad a subsequent error must be for it to no longer > warrant redress, but your point seems to be that there can > be NO such error. There can and there must. > I believe the logic of what the Law currently states makes it hard if not impossible to justify what is being done and I think David B agrees. I and/or others have been accused of not using logic but to me the logic is straight forward: Assume and illegal call has been chosen then and only then L16A2 if this results in damage then the director adjust the score; In particular, by adjusting for the OS you must first have determined that there was damage - this must surely be damage for the NOS as the OS certainly aren't damaged by getting -500 instead of -650 or whatever; If you adjust for the OS then you must adjust for the NOS and L12C2 directs such an adjustment to be the most favourable likely result without the infraction and does not allow for the NOS keeping a result obtained after the infraction. In some jurisdictions (those that do not disallow it)L12C3 allows ("...may...") but does not compel us to vary the adjustment to restore equity. But what equity - to my mind there are a number of options: 1. Equity after the infraction and after the revoke - the view of David B. and that you believe to be the majority; 2. Equity before the infraction - generous to the NOS given that they revoked/misdefended/forgot to double etc etc; 3. Equity before the infraction but taking into account that they subsequently failed to play up to some definition of reasonable bridge. I don't believe 1. is equity it can be far too harsh. For those who believe 1. is equity for the NOS I am interested in how you handle the following example given that if NOS revoke when they were booked for +800 and only get +500. OS can score -100 after the offense but they revoke and score -300 still a good score so you adjust to -650. Is there a further adjustment for the revoke? If not why not? If not it seems that in some situations the only side that can be penalized for a revoke/misplay subsequent to an infraction is the NOS. Is this equity? I believe in some cases 2. can be too generous. I believe that 3. is just right. It restores the situation before the infraction and allows us to 'penalize' a player for subsequent unreasonable actions but limits such adjustments to the range of results/scores that would have been possible without the infraction. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 16 07:31:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFKUmL23374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:30:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBFKUcH23338 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:30:39 +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 fBFKNHB08213 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:23:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001601c185a6$380e2140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c183f0$cf116d20$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <00a401c1840b$50c551a0$35227ad5@pbncomputer> <001101c184c3$f885ec20$14b801d5@pbncomputer> <003501c18546$daac1480$4d82403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:22:19 -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" > It has been the pronouncements of 'the authorities', > led by Edgar Kaplan, that have introduced the division > of the damage into 'consequent' and 'subsequent', and > the concept that only the damage that is 'consequent' > should be redressed to the NOS. The WBFLC changed > its stance in relation to the OS, 30 August 1998, by > saying that the OS is not to have the advantage of > damage whether it is consequent or subsequent unless, > in the latter case only, it derives solely from the good > play of the OS. I have long wanted an explanation of the last clause. Could someone please provide an example of when the OS can have the advantage of subsequent damage that derives solely from their good play? My inclination is to question the appropriateness of this statement, but I can hardly do so if I don't understand it. The rest of that Lille interpretation, which allows denial of redress to the NOS if the damage they suffered after an irregularity was self-inflicted, not blameable on the infraction, was worded very well. No mention of "damage" in regard to the OS, but application of 72B1 and its "gained an advantage through the irregularity." How can anyone argue with that? The WBF LC has the sole authority for interpreting the Laws. Anyone who doesn't like its interpretations should make counter-suggestions to the LC instead of proclaiming that their (sic) conflicting interpretations are more valid. 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 Dec 16 08:26:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFLQ3P00300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 08:26:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay2.ornis.com (mailrelay2.ornis.com [195.101.197.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBFLPrH00291 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 08:25:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.ffbridge.net ([194.133.125.111]) by mailrelay2.ornis.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id fBFLI8lB009012; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:18:09 +0100 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:18:08 +0100 Message-Id: <200112152118.fBFLI8lB009012@mailrelay2.ornis.com> FROM: Philippe LORMANT Subject: [BLML] 1 480 ff Sous-total . X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on the network) Found virus PE_MAGISTR.B in file Alleriretour.exe The uncleanable file is deleted. --------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit € 488kms x 2 x 2F ..1 952 ff Péages ................................................... 158 x 2 ………… 316 ff Repas …............................................... pour mémoire T O T A L : 15 588 ff Règlement par chèque bancaire à l’ordre de Catherine Lormant Avec nos remerciements . . ------=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on the network) Alleriretour.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. --------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380 Content-Type: image/gif; name="StoryBook.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="StoryBook.gif" R0lGODlhIANqANX/ANaEhNZjY4whIcYpKdYpKRAAANZaUqUpIdZCMWshGN5SKcZSKa1KIYQ5GDkY CN57SlIpEOdzKe+MKWM5EKVjGLVrGEopAHNKEN6UGPelGL2EEMDAwGshY4xKhHs5c86UxnMpY86E vcaEtaVjlIwxa3shUsZrnKVKe4QYUs6Mrc57pb1KhJQhUq0xY70pY70YUpwQQrUQSs5Se84hWnsA KaUAObUAOc5CazkAEGMAGM4IMdZre85CSpwYIQAAAAAAACH5BAEAABsALAAAAAAgA2oAQAb/QJ9w SCwaj8jkcMNsNlUdECjK6Yyc2Kx2y+16v+CweEwum8/otHrNbrvf8Lh8Tq/b73i8r1BD0mw1OEU5 NEpEODCJJQVDBTklKCcfYx0eeZeYmZqbnJ2en6ChoqOkpU1GOjY5hkM0gkgwr42FeywFYB8kLCOT uCMcHFddIRymxsfIycrLzM3Oz6WoqkoFgIysrDFaJyFxKsVOv9Dj5OXm5+jp6utb2Dg6OrLY8zgt IS0tvRs3K2MmKCY2nIjkJMQIEhxAlGDHsKHDhxAjSoyY5AACBPKO4CBEI1UqGyBDAqKRgxFJIVxe qMCiYkWLRIlYtODmxcOuiThz6tzJs6dP/zNIGCiAICQBggUJ5vnA8YfGtSRYRNyIEbKGVav4Vmjd 2oIFTBgsVnT7Sbas2bNo0y7zwaDCgggQniJpgFRpI3g1SNKokSNLiBcvRGxQ8aJLCxsr1SpezLix 48dlhDiQoITBBLuHDhTZuETGDCwrXuj74mJswRYv+kFezbq169flhjjAoEGCAyUOIMTFzDYpEQcD zvy1IViMS9jIkytfzvyNgwxKHThocOEC9QsQbhtxIJSB9iMbAgTAc6Nw8/Po06tX7gODBd6Ui1hY gLvBhAQTtGMBgOCB6TTDJbbegAQWaCBZRlyQQQYaNKjBghR8d4QFFRxRAAVKbPBACqMd6P/hhyCG qBhv2DhQQQYRFlHABBpEcAFKIsYo44w0UrRZDnnRoKNVrgjBFA1ffUUSDnJl6AQJAXkxgiU1Nunk k1DascpmIGVkBFNKxHIEDCUs8cRAJJxwwghjekBCCR38F4YVW4gQTJRwxinnh4MAMg8hJBJBgzDb CKjGLx0yIc6chBZqKGxI4FADPCAxmgNTOvBFIlOS+gBDFiO0QAkKJByEQgl8RgXCBh940MGhqKaq 6ohJJDCADhLmuVlTfWHRwg1MmACDamCcAAMJXIRQgpqrFmvssRIlUYACCDBg1AAJFIkZjnvsJVJI N5gWgjZnjMACCgAhK+645DJUxAILxMr/CgQJ9HBAD/DC+6i0RXxhQ64mqEBsufz26686e0QgQQRK QMBAngPI8g4RTZhgw38qcPtFDf9WbPHFxgwxAcE+bJyiEBC4SAS6ShVwwAEFOCAAETzIIJUONwTq xQfEffFBDLxirPPOPKPhw3MSQoCBBBfQOw8E6EroQAILXHQRAU5fNMAAPLQsgwzlpZKazGCs8FnP YIctdhYOaEAix0ZYAJdSTHygwA50rPDw2HTX3bMQCiqFwYtFmHjEBHwjAUAAMqdgALMBAOAnSyvw AI8M+9ot+eT/ynrEZOoWHAHlnHfuOReWh+5lQaBuUSoHXH+u+urGDqGolULgmGMfrDjC/wILJe2B w0ZEwiho6k58sBDrxBe/Kmcq/kG7hTAYUgDuROTAgjwbiPBtkl2ogCYZH/zSwfceVFGc8eSXf96V IBldRI8aNW8EI88LMkb3Z6LgwQgjqCAC/uEDkyapwNsAm8xHwAKypk42UIoN1OeDHMRAR0CSByJm Fi40/CJUWQCHATfIwbQMIlLY2Ivo6rEFSbzBTcT6XgdXyEKfvA8vR8hBlfaAI5Dk5VG7210OCGED kkjrUizR1BhUcAISmCp1A9zALyLXwiY6cR1KwYENdEAL0S1lL4sLARDDMAIU9IIEn+JCCThAggA+ 8YxohIYh3jGAKYkOR26swfhuwIJe4P+jDCJAAQs8cAI+jsAEvRjBqdJIyEKaIwkQQMAAVmbFK+0F Z38UQTdEEINe6AoGLRjB+Bp2Aq+wYJMsQQEGDUnKUiKjIheRBwQEoAMC9MAVsCNCATZSg2vZUCxb iAEoy/CBgaBgcaYMpjBFoawGXGQBDGQFHJEQgqmIxCozMIELRpk9EsTkk8PMpjaJWYQGKMA320nA yS5ygAFAbQA9yIEDklmvLpigBi6opTxrAAN6wuAFLQDkNvfJz1BIJgIAzdx2BoAAAQjUdT3QgRvb qQUVzIAqoBRBC2oQA+z186IYzYQQChCBtkSgAYlKF4leOUsdyAULL3CBE/gxsxhQM6P/MI0pGyQT HyRwJ0/iLEIC3MgEr2EhBHPrmkVlStSiRkYIGCAKEZAG0AikywETEIpSsSEARhZFFinQgT5kUDMx iEClXOglDIBp1LLGlAi1wUDmQgZQBrSVNzhw1rtORgB9mkEFNhhqWGugV7P6lZ9CsIAEGAEBCai1 kT9bgFWLQIAUkGEFqeirF1Ygsb9adp8+0ACGLlcBCUiAAvlJAlTp0tGp+gBpCkgtA5yVgATwJwA7 kEEAqia1qsmArGaAgWQvy1tSlo03FGCgW0HKig98AAFwq4PDmNjb5qbRAtDhTQXUdQFk2qVtHzAA Aph7Bh2IxrngDaYPLIABzFTgMkWI/wC9IFABaUFAAQDIQgoQ8DbubiEEXH2BfcPL3yY2gja4wcBh ExQ4Ikw3QxsynRNSkAIT7ODBOwCACTgEwP5aeJiIbc97MAOAB1z4w83N8M8+W6IIUADEKOatiEmk BRF4AAT6nET3POCBXab4xoSkxu7WuOM8RaUENm7CB6aA4yIXUpY6stIsrWIDGOBQRbsrAVhckUwn iGCQXiCGkbd8Rh8tbzM8uga16KFHsLCgBJA4cw5MY0YmfIPLcG6hD5xyhKv4YaGJQsGUEpGRgWAT DN8IshdUIMiXxvnQOsOzEP6QQCXsUAlAMkIOUCCLtg3EA7hVQfgMbTpTYeEDHXgTov9HjTFp1bKK Smh0+5LgZN8JmUw09qOfDFKJWNPYCovDshYGRepe98sIHUE1pGOJCI3ErhBi6CKacMuEK/vPvkvy tbTJRaUFzoN9MaSzj2zRilp1wXom5F6oOb0BDU773Kv6oLCToCh39LgIMBD0BkjA7GRzIMhaRre+ U6XueUzDcjk4QZtytgYiY4pJ+044oaikA1ZIUdG8KcAWrUxuM9zv06JWuMbhBOxUKKuWEuQIkyH4 qCxpQYhxuLcTPL3xlkNJI3gp+e5qaYPdMdqHDpfdQifeU2CJQXuQ0GMZtxDt6mXc5UinkRJomU4i deTflgNSDng+GJSDwVuTCMGnWHD/Xw6EwIhtTrrYB0SPGWa4ADEICxb+DIYQ3KR74GqoB0o39rrL aF3wiGXocnCFXtqj2TAIu5tJEKZImKADJ1BICU6gP5/b/fEgMsTUVP1GHDmFD7YS4gd0S4aBGHpM goe86JGjBIIOYMWL5osWWJAkXbWg3hsIgU3YnoXEj/72BUqCAKAGzijmcHf0qgEjpOmC4gvjOE2g LEzw0ZWvhFsLQ/Yi7qevHlQOYK00SCijavDKHe7QWrYERO+4YAKrp6GTQ6e++pvTqoskpQCuIoAA dhNxRtvyBSNQ0woEjoZ7gGu36xeAB6R7zIIA0RI6OjIr12IVpcEEMbBfLGFNXgGA/wJYgY+BBAUg FHShSOwUQ3lhJB9gAi/wTNC0ArAnAivgFTGxAqFngS6IFu+zAEMhSwLQNA3QO1DWLlSEg4awBdL0 TIBgFfUUJIlwA3b1gkj4GkXwXgeDekhgL0wQAipgAluhArCXhFgIGUPAVuiFDRBgEQjQAwmAA9Lh ADgAAdlHRerjBQ5DFS7QAvEET0eYhXToGlv4UdhgFAzQgT5iDbOEg1twAzbAgveiBSEQTxVXh4po Fj7QWU3VUUlAFwelLD1QSwuFAxb1ASkVSGDFBSdQWYsYih4UMJehPgtgWkqRU0LwSgzTBOUxGrr0 BdIkirQIgx0TUElgXXB1ekTQA/+VRiqIgQUsBQYuIG+1eIw2EjIFQ1y80VpLyFM0szgzQHCGAUwm YIzImI2xIQS2cTkN4FSrxQCo6DwI0DfgtAExIANOYAI6gI1OUIgtJhNXqI30qAxDwACb9TMVEAEV QBTfuFQRMIlF4CxDMABPIQM80Gwz0FVi4ALUmAUuwHX1OJFqRFMQQAES0IVDAFCBA1B2AX+KZFDS gQOKRAA3MI9ZQFlhoJIU2ZJrMQQNQDSi9RZNJZDvowAShABocDPmEQYt8JAuGZT+JAQVECGeZZOY kYGLNQQ6iUcjmFzGAYpCOZWfQJT5WFjdKDoJ8E3bwS4IYAA8YABXoy+mIwMx4F3/KAkanUiVbNkJ PnABZqMinSWTdjEdCnCKSyUUBRg1TkNQBEAAOvAqrwIPJ6kG09iWiMkJPpABG4aBEzCXEqABbUEB +NhUCyCOSyiDC9AA6nJcaZkGImADLZiYpKkGz4F6GyNSGaICCjCaZVADQFmasgkHv4UZDpCPRvCN 4/iE4YEArhkGN4MrszmcdFCb5pU5IsM2k7ADCvCZPzeIxBmdcrCYJKIB6rI219UEKaAABvCb0DeC 7iid4ikGmRWXSmEB5jkEoIUEISOO0pEADJAuWcAfBuBYacCOOuCc47mfoNMeGmkIEJABRWKc6WU0 OBABi2NcAcCdOwCB1cNVOsCCm/w5oWswBA1SOxdqBIBzBBcwiR8QAfYZPG0DANrlNGAJllVjTi2j nxTaolpABOiJAf85Xg+SnkVwAbg5BNiBYCFqMy76o3OABBZQHdXRmLhRU32zm0Lwod4JpE6qBhlG ATmKDQ8QX096pZggYg3Chw4QAVaKpWB6Bys2GxrAQCGDIWGapnbghKdFAbWhARXQWSgyAU+hpnYq B0EAADvjG+ZwDd6wGRoHDrpwKBkxCkumEQKwCfPYCJQwCUa4CJFgj3b5mBkTF+YAD97gYcWHC1Ik ANqlRwGgC5hoCZ7wCcHVCKewNZDQlJjQCX/ACJDZmgljHgegYRqXO5b1C78ADBmhXQwRAKWQdSCR CaCwIByBCVXpmsa5LkyTABWQANknEEKhOwwJC+jyD6FAIKCnW5mgYB2BCHB5nN6pLgkRAdH/s2tQ ch6t8A6RBQ40uAxQgQ7OkAvEkAtFlgreBYapEGABAgurYCMJlmCvQFp+cJqY+J0EuiYSFj2WaWHm cA+HsxvewJXJIA64IKHTgJFGc6FNFQzhABUdEQqp0hJiCAnLWKAkSjgIYQHRkydogAHKaQDm8JNJ 8QvTEAzf8z3gUwzfMC4zohIB8AlU4ZslGqSNohAcgAIpKmZMQzJLsg3TAD5OqgqDkmImAZr9+VVC eqUmahB0kAIVwAFqdAEwyjQ5NoWCZjqhQAzgg2bFIAzX2RABgAo3MiClkAoDiqV2CiRAoQMXQhBo QGMhYA9K0IDgsADiwA/wMA7mkDJxwREe/zoULYJmauYyLXMLs/AyznAKI3qnmmqgBKEEv9KcwvIR BfQP+hUKM4IK6NCmm7qqSiUQQXBnPPAbLiAeWmYBCICe7/AOGcCg3jAOBvUR6MAMusAMxBCfLpIL Ocqqypqlr2ppr4MCQPQbn0YO23Oe8rQRqmAN2eAHo6oRAXBmJbes4pom/vAESIBv/BYDCQECmRZG 63A4gQYcDycAxUAMg/ENpBYmujCu/HomAkEHTDBlaFBOMOBzUBIP8gAa/BCvzeQMf+IQ0KCqvvOh /Vqx7uIPUiBBszcQMNB6oYEAB1AQ8uBhDCEAx5B1piYSxCCxFtuyHuMPsPY6RjA3FoABBf+BAEOD HyZrbs9waiKhCtNJQoPpskTbXtNic1gkBDmQBDEQAzgQBEiaIRWwJAgQDwuhDuH6DeVGEr6QcLCg ZEUbtrMxEE/QBJCSBEjwBErgDzhgd656A2sbGnRwAJ7iDwfwIfSQDiVbDtrAshnhDKoAEl8rtoTr GpASBUTQBIjLFkcwBDObIUOQA+VpAR8QAiCQq+/gAm7UD/VgdSahCiYUEs2wr4VbupFBEF0QBc5a EFOAJExwA0NgRlDyCxVgme+gDynhB9CALCKxCs1gusDbGAPxBWHgBGKQccXHACnAAVpaASchA6QS rqLLu8FbvWUhEF+ABQNxBRi3sZtCBCX/ULeQ4gIoSgENsAH0IAEDkKkC8A3RcA3R4LklgSrWW79k 4Q9VAAYG0TAY1wWoZylKW7AE4QJcmgMVYKRrlGXj0Q8ZFjv9gA/4AA/a4AxAShLEIAz2m8Fg4Q9e gHwIgQZS8AQyFwVQ8AQmXARFgARDwARJ8LSbpAQwcAMwAAI25wcQIL82gQ3MUKca3MMq8UvNaQQ3 oAOyKywaUAGZChO+IL0+3MQ0MUjSMgVmixBCMASKtKj/wAJ7VxO6W59O/MU0EQdeJy1yp6VJsLpJ 0RA2gAI4/BIK57NgHMcx4Q9t8L9JAQazdwRXvEgNsQIVcAJJbBKjsrVyXMgv4Q9u4AZz/0IG+lsQ TSAnBxEEM/C0NEADPKADMKAEGnHEJwByKTEAx3AMQWvIpLwSAqEGcPAbvyRraHAtZmzHTnADtucQ frBKJZB5IyED2aAN3pBHpfzLVyQQZzDGnAQGYIB6VAB7BUEF3isQfrADSSwAErABa0QBG9AA2NwA +QAB/VAABFB5wBzOwSwQc3AGqPwuZJAGXmAGdtwF2msQVLDHDlh74lzP93sQZMAG+swGU2DHZyQG COEEzXYQAnAEPGzPCN0SxYcF0jcnQLAECR3RXfF8X3DMtHIENiDRGq0T2We8YOCxA0EEWfAEdLDR Jn0ToOoPU4AFXCAGYPAFX9BFXyAFYAd00jY9EwEBADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0069_013AECF3.47ECF380-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 16 08:26:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBFLQCk00305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 08:26:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailgate2.ornis.com (mailgate2.ornis.com [194.133.125.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBFLQ2H00301 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 08:26:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by mailgate2.ornis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20232; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:18:30 +0100 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:18:30 +0100 From: notify@ornis.com Message-Id: <200112152118.WAA20232@mailgate2.ornis.com> To: bridge@ml.free.fr, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, fifthfriday@onelist.com, sostrikov@alfabank.ru Subject: [BLML] Virus Alert 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 Have detected a virus (PE_MAGISTR.B) in your mail traffic on 12/15/2001 22:18:24 with an action deleted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 16 13:52:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBG2pVX22906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:51:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBG2pMH22882 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:51:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-246.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.246] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16FRNm-0007GW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:50:30 +1300 Message-ID: <003401c185db$ae995160$f66837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:44:04 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18648.7D4DC2E0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18648.7D4DC2E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At a recent club night,when I was a playing Director, the following = occurred--- (they were an elderly couple - just a little tired, I guess) West North East South 1NT pass 1D (not accepted by South) Away from the table, I asked East why he bid 1D. He replied that he had = not seen the 1NT bid and thought he was opening. Their system was a strong NT with weak take-outs at the 2 level (no = transfers), hence a 2D response would be natural and weak. I read and fully explained Law 27B1 and Law 27B2 and left them to it as = I had my own hand to play. A minute later I was called back to find the = bidding had gone as follows: West North East South 1NT pass 2D pass 3NT p p p So I let them play it out. I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which says that Law 16C2 does not apply to = this situation. My questions are: (1) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT =3D 6 = ? (2) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT =3D -1 = ? (3) How does the Director rule if called immediately after West's bid of = 3NT, and before North's acceptance of it? Thanks, Regards, Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18648.7D4DC2E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At a recent club night,when I was a = playing=20 Director, the following occurred--- (they were an elderly couple - = just a=20 little tired, I guess)
 
    = West   =20     North       =20 East        South
     = 1NT   =20      =20 pass         = 1D    (not=20 accepted by South)
 
Away from the table, I asked East = why he bid=20 1D. He replied that he had not seen the 1NT bid and thought he was=20 opening.
Their system was a strong NT with weak = take-outs at=20 the 2 level (no transfers), hence a 2D response would be natural and=20 weak.
 
I read and fully explained Law 27B1 and = Law 27B2=20 and left them to it as I had my own hand to play. A minute later = I was=20 called back to find the bidding had gone as follows:
 
    = West   =20     North       =20 East        South
     = 1NT   =20       pass        = 2D           = pass
     = 3NT  =20         p    =    =20      p       =20         p
 
 So I let them play it = out.
 
I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which says = that Law=20 16C2 does not apply to this situation.
 
My questions are:
 
(1) What is the correct ruling if the = rest of the=20 field is in 6NT =3D  6 ?
 
(2) What is the correct ruling if the = rest of the=20 field is in 6NT =3D -1 ?
 
(3) How does the Director rule if = called=20 immediately after West's bid of 3NT, and before North's acceptance of=20 it?
 
Thanks,
 
Regards,
 
Ray.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18648.7D4DC2E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 16 21:11:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBGA9QJ03067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:09:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBGA9GH03051 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:09:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBGA16Z00984; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:01:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1 To: "Ray Crowe" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:01:04 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/16/2001 11:01:06 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At a recent club night,when I was a playing Director, the following occurred--- (they were an elderly couple - just a little tired, I guess) West North East South 1NT pass 1D (not accepted by South) Away from the table, I asked East why he bid 1D. He replied that he had not seen the 1NT bid and thought he was opening. Their system was a strong NT with weak take-outs at the 2 level (no transfers), hence a 2D response would be natural and weak. I read and fully explained Law 27B1 and Law 27B2 and left them to it as I had my own hand to play. A minute later I was called back to find the bidding had gone as follows: West North East South 1NT pass 2D pass 3NT p p p So I let them play it out. I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which says that Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation. My questions are: (1) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT = 6 ? (2) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT = -1 ? (3) How does the Director rule if called immediately after West's bid of 3NT, and before North's acceptance of it? Thanks, To begin with the last question: It is none of North's business to "accept" or "not accept" the 3NT bid. But as a director you have a duty to try whether Law27B1b is applicable: If you as director judge "that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, you shall assign an adjusted score". So you have to assess the situation: If you feel (judge) that West probably "understood" East had an opening hand and not only a hand as described by a natural 2D bid over the 1NT opening bid, then apply Law27B1b and assign adjusted score(s) most likely to reflect the result of a "normal" auction - but only if this result would have been less favourable for E-W that the result they actually obtained! (Otherwise the situation has not "caused damage" to non-offending side). This does not automatically instruct you to roll back the contract to f.i. 2D. East obviously bid 2D with the understanding that this call would not lead to any penalty upon West. If you apply Law27B1b you must also consider what call East should probably have made had he understood right away that West would be forced to pass, and in a sequence like this a direct jump to 3NT by East might not at all be unreasonable. He should obviously want to go for game with an opening hand on his own, or even for slam if his opening hand was of strength around 16+HCP, so he would hardly find a better guess that going straight for 3NT (or 6NT if he has that much strength) if he knew that West would have to pass. I did not answer your two first questions? No - they cannot be answered directly. But unless is is "obvious" for E-W to land in 6NT in a "normal" auction none of those two questions seem relevant here. And if it really is obvious to land in 6NT which should normally be cold, but goes down due to an extreme card distribution then the "damage" to opponents (by E-W instead landing in a favourable 3NT) is not caused by the irregularity as such but by the cards. (This is an important distinction which is pretty often overlooked when assessing "damage"). It seems to me that in most "normal" cases a final contract of 3NT should be let to stand, either because it is not the best contract, or because it is an obvious contract which East can reach with a direct bid, or finally because "damage" to NOS was caused by the way the cards lay, not by the irregularity. Regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 00:44:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBGDhGi06416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:43:16 +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 ([194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBGDh6H06392 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:43:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-123.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.123]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBGDZes24430 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:35:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C1C865E.20109@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:32:46 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000701c184f9$5dfefe40$cc16b9d2@laptop> <3C19E57E.1050405@village.uunet.be> <003d01c18648$5c5ab3e0$2918b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne, I shall be very brief : Wayne Burrows wrote: > > L16A2 if this results in damage then the director adjust the score; > "results in" -- 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 Dec 17 01:05:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBGE4pD10250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:04:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBGE4gH10232 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:04:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.43.32]) by fep02-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20011216135714.GSWP17913.fep02-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:57:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c18637$6c840840$202b97d4@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] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:41:53 +0100 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id fBGE4iH10238 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This thread has been going for some time. I am trying to sum up, but I am afraid some of you will not agree. I take the case with 5 hearts over 4 spades. Let us assume the result at the other table is +500. Law 16A2, last sentence, reads: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." The board is thus played in 5 hearts doubled and that can never be void, as play should go on according to law. 1. NOS scores 800. No damage. Score stands. 2. NOS scores 500, which is the normal result. OS side gets -650 as does the NOS. 4 imps to NOS. 3. Ridiculous (or some other adjective) defense lets NOS score 300. OS side gets -650. This means -4 imps. The infraction has in (2) caused 4 imps. The played result gives 8 imps to OS. The NOS gets a push as 4 of the 8 imps were caused by the bad defense. In terms of match points: 800 = 100%, 650 = 70%, 500= 50%, 300=10%. These are the frequencies. In our case 800 will score 100%, 500 for OS 30%, for NOS 70%, 300 for OS 30%, for NOS 30% (the bad defense has caused 40% (50% minus 10%). Hans-Olof -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 05:16:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBGIFrU11936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 05:15:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBGIFgH11932 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 05:15:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 1027 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2001 18:08:20 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.7/3.51. . Clean. Processed in 1.046912 secs); 16 Dec 2001 18:08:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.68) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 16 Dec 2001 18:08:19 -0000 Message-ID: <004b01c1870b$9376a1e0$4418b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <012501c183e6$0e913a80$ef15b9d2@laptop> <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> <01b301c18475$b12ad960$ef15b9d2@laptop> <006001c183d2$2bb15fa0$cb6d7ad5@pbncomputer> <000701c184f9$5dfefe40$cc16b9d2@laptop> <3C19E57E.1050405@village.uunet.be> <003d01c18648$5c5ab3e0$2918b9d2@laptop> <3C1C865E.20109@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 06:59:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Wayne, I shall be very brief : > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > L16A2 if this results in damage then the director adjust the score; > > > > > "results in" > Exactly my point. So if you argue that the infraction, not "results in", damage then you may not adjust the score. Agreed. The arguement some are making here is that it is okay to adjust the OS score. Why? On what basis? If the infraction "results in" no damage? Logically as soon as you say OS cant get -500 they must get -620 for example, you have implicity argued that the infraction "results in" damage. Otherwise you may not adjust. Having made this (implicit) arguement now you must also adjust for the NOS after all they are the ones that you have just implicitly argued have been damaged - "results in" type damage. Contradiction. This does not compute. Infraction => 1. => No Damage a. => NOS score table result b. => OS score table result 2. => Damage a. => Most favourable likely result without the infraction b. => Something similar Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 17:32:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBH6W2j23610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:32:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBH6VsH23581 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:31:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 6E8C1487EF; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:24:30 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:24:26 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was 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 5:56 PM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies >to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was >included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got >shot down on that. This was addressed to Adam B., but not being shy I'm jumping in anyway! Who shot you down, Marv? What ammunition did they use? I've checked the list archives -- I find no convincing arguments for this position, nor any references to an official interpretation. Here's the text of the relevant part of 12C2: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." That is certainly not implicit. The authors could not have intended that we should understand that meaning or they would have stated it explicitly. One could equally well guess the missing hypothetical modifier is "had the pairs sat in opposite directions" or "had the game been pinochle." The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. -- 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 Mon Dec 17 20:49:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBH9nC823638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:49:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBH9n3H23616 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:49:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA30773; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:41:38 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 17 10:38:50 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 <01KBYZXDREQY002UF0@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:41:14 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:41:09 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:41:13 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) To: "'Adam Wildavsky'" , "Marvin L. French" Cc: 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 Adam: > Here's the text of the relevant part of 12C2: > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a > result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a > non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second > clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the > subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the > context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. > > If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the > OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we > should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS > bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." That is > certainly not implicit. The authors could not have intended that we > should understand that meaning or they would have stated it > explicitly. One could equally well guess the missing hypothetical > modifier is "had the pairs sat in opposite directions" or "had the > game been pinochle." > > The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not > occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the > Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought > to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors > even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. > Good morning to all of you, the thread is still going on! Good to see that, otherwise weekends are in danger. I agree (completely personally) with Adam that the lawmakers intended law 12C2 to say what it does say. Which means that 12C2 does not make clear that we can use my suggested way of calculating the results when some combination of subsequent and consequent damage has occurred. Let me admit that, especially to Wayne. But that was not the thread as I remember it. Wayne didn't accept the concept of splitting damage in a caused-by-part and an after-the-infraction-part. That is where my objection was aimed at. Let me try to approach this concept in an other way. We assume a call for the TD after the following has happened. NS bid 4H and EW after a long huddle causing UI 4S, which is doubled. The TD tells them to continue play and he starts analysing the hand. He decides that pass is a LA for EW and finds out that EW wil loose 8 tricks for sure: 1100 for NS instead of the normal 420 had the infraction not occurred. Satisfied he concentrates on coming calls since this case is over. Nobody will call him back, there being no damage! One last thing he does is wondering whether the 4S bid is that unethical that he needs to give EW a warning or even a penalty. He decides not to. Surprisingly they do call him back. And NS tells him that they lost a) 2 of their 8 expected tricks (still collecting + 500); b) 3 of their 8 expected tricks (collecting only + 300). The TD tries to establish that the play has been influenced by the wrong impression NS received as a result of the supposed holding, anticipating on the bidding by EW and justifying the play, but no, in both cases the defence was just horrible, no excuse. Is there any reason to treat these cases differently for the non-offending side? To let the TD change his previous decision that they were not damaged by the infraction from their opponents? I don't think so. Does it sound reasonable to say that they should not have defended 4S in case b) and therefore are entitled to + 420? 999 out of 1000 pairs would have enjoyed to defend 4S. Let me remind you that this approach resulted in the ACBL in not being able to adjust the score for the offending side either (they should get - 420 in case b). Law 16A demanded damage to adjust the score. The WBFLC for this reason decided that for the offending side subsequent damage for their opponents should be included in the possible reasons to adjust the score. What I do agree in is that law 12 seems not to be written to calculate the adjustments as we prefer to do it know. But that doesn't mean that the approach as given is not the best possible. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 21:25:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHAO2900416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:24:02 +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 fBHANrH00399 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:23:53 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA24312; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:16:29 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 17 11:13:44 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 <01KBZ14RBAVY002UG6@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:15:25 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:15:20 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:15:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage 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 > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > It has been the pronouncements of 'the authorities', > > led by Edgar Kaplan, that have introduced the division > > of the damage into 'consequent' and 'subsequent', and > > the concept that only the damage that is 'consequent' > > should be redressed to the NOS. The WBFLC changed > > its stance in relation to the OS, 30 August 1998, by > > saying that the OS is not to have the advantage of > > damage whether it is consequent or subsequent unless, > > in the latter case only, it derives solely from the good > > play of the OS. > > I have long wanted an explanation of the last clause. Could > someone please > provide an example of when the OS can have the advantage of subsequent > damage that derives solely from their good play? My inclination is to > question the appropriateness of this statement, but I can > hardly do so if > I don't understand it. I have to admit that once in while I would like people to read our phrases less carefully. And here it worked for a couple of years. Still we had some idea. Assume a battle for the final contract going 4H - 4S - ... 5H - 5S - 6H - 6S, NS bidding hearts and EW bidding spades. A hesitation occurred before N bid 5H. 6H will be 2 off, 6S results in 2 off as well, due to a brilliant defence by NS. The TD and AC decide that 6S is a teribble bid and therefore the score for EW is the result of subsequent damage (sorry Wayne). What will the result for NS be? We have discussed similar situations before. The play in 5S is not necessarily the same as in 6S. We have to consider the possibility that declarer might choose for another plan succesfully playing for 11 tricks. And indeed in this case there is that possibility. What we probably wanted to say is that if the TD is convinced that the defence would have found their not so easy to find 3 tricks anyway, the adjusted score for NS should be based on 5S - 1. Let me ask Grattan for his reaction before you all start attacking me. I might be completely wrong. Quite a personal victory to admit that, probably the result of the X-mas greetings I already received. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 21:48:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHAmMX03906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:48:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHAmCH03886 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:48:13 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA22754; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:40:48 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 17 11:38:00 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 <01KBZ20RHLNA002UH5@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:40:27 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:40:22 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:40:24 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Burn , 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 David: > > > > It is as if Manchester United were awarded a free kick on > > the half-way line. David Beckham steps up to take it, and > > miraculously strikes the ball into the net! Unfortunately, > > unaccustomed to being on the pitch at all these days, he > > has become disoriented, and the net into which he has > > struck it is his own. Now, if the Laws of bridge were to be > > applied to the game of football, should the own goal be > > disallowed on the basis that the foul leading to the free > > kick has "resulted in" damage to the non-offending side? I know that in Australia English football is vey popular and followed intensively on TV, but does this example help for guys from NZ? > +=+ As a Liverpool F C supporter I admire this example > greatly. > 2. It is also refreshing to see the words "resulted in" > quoted. The concept of the damage resulting from the > infraction is present in 16A2 and in 40C. Law 12C2 then > provides a statement of how the score is to be adjusted > if it is to be adjusted at all after an irregularity; 12C2 > does not take into account anything at all to do with > 'consequent' and 'subsequent'. It simply says " if the > laws elsewhere trigger a score adjustment this is the > way you do it", and it does not say anything at all about > partial redress of the damage that has occurred, nor that > all of the damage must be the result of the infraction to > trigger the adjustment. Neither do 40C or 16A2 make > this last stipulation. Law 12C3 provides scope for > mitigating the bald effects of 12C2, and if we award an > assigned adjusted score that does not carry out > precisely the narrow requirements in 12C2 it is > evidently done under the authority provided by 12C3. > It has been the pronouncements of 'the authorities', > led by Edgar Kaplan, that have introduced the division > of the damage into 'consequent' and 'subsequent', and > the concept that only the damage that is 'consequent' > should be redressed to the NOS. The WBFLC changed > its stance in relation to the OS, 30 August 1998, by > saying that the OS is not to have the advantage of > damage whether it is consequent or subsequent unless, > in the latter case only, it derives solely from the good > play of the OS. I believe that 'the authorities' have > introduced principles that are desirable and therefore > 'right' [and perhaps, posthumously, Edgar should be > congratulated for his skilled recourse to 12C3. :-)) ]. > Now I am leaving for a weekend seminar for top > English TDs. Back tomorrow evening. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have struggled to avoid mentioning 12c3, because then the conclusion is that some of us can't apply this approach of adjusting scores. On the other hand it should help us to convince zones that they need to give the TD the authority to use 12c3 to get equity results. I am interested in the stuff presented in your top TD course. Is it in a showable format? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 21:57:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHAvF404938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:57:15 +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 fBHAv5H04905 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:57:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA12774; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:49:41 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 17 11:46:56 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 <01KBZ2B76Z84002UHH@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:48:52 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:48:46 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:48:50 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 27B1 To: "'Sven.Pran@alcatel.no'" , Ray Crowe Cc: 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 > At a recent club night,when I was a playing Director, the following > occurred--- (they were an elderly couple - just a little > tired, I guess) > > West North East South > 1NT pass 1D (not accepted by South) > > Away from the table, I asked East why he bid 1D. He replied > that he had not > seen the 1NT bid and thought he was opening. > Their system was a strong NT with weak take-outs at the 2 level (no > transfers), hence a 2D response would be natural and weak. > > I read and fully explained Law 27B1 and Law 27B2 and left > them to it as I > had my own hand to play. A minute later I was called back to find the > bidding had gone as follows: > > West North East South > 1NT pass 2D pass > 3NT p p p > > So I let them play it out. > > I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which says that Law 16C2 does not > apply to this > situation. > > My questions are: > > (1) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in > 6NT = 6 ? > > (2) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in > 6NT = -1 ? > > (3) How does the Director rule if called immediately after > West's bid of > 3NT, and before North's acceptance of it? > > Thanks, > > > To begin with the last question: It is none of North's > business to "accept" > or "not accept" > the 3NT bid. > > But as a director you have a duty to try whether Law27B1b is > applicable: > > If you as director judge "that the insufficient bid conveyed such > information > as to damage the non-offending side, you shall assign an > adjusted score". > > So you have to assess the situation: > If you feel (judge) that West probably "understood" East had > an opening > hand and not only a hand as described by a natural 2D bid over the 1NT > opening bid, then apply Law27B1b and assign adjusted score(s) most > likely to reflect the result of a "normal" auction - but only if this > result would > have been less favourable for E-W that the result they > actually obtained! > (Otherwise the situation has not "caused damage" to > non-offending side). > > This does not automatically instruct you to roll back the > contract to f.i. > 2D. > East obviously bid 2D with the understanding that this call > would not lead > to any penalty upon West. If you apply Law27B1b you must also consider > what call East should probably have made had he understood right away > that West would be forced to pass, and in a sequence like > this a direct > jump > to 3NT by East might not at all be unreasonable. > > He should obviously want to go for game with an opening hand > on his own, > or even for slam if his opening hand was of strength around > 16+HCP, so he > would hardly find a better guess that going straight for 3NT > (or 6NT if he > has > that much strength) if he knew that West would have to pass. > > I did not answer your two first questions? No - they cannot > be answered > directly. > But unless is is "obvious" for E-W to land in 6NT in a > "normal" auction > none > of those two questions seem relevant here. And if it really > is obvious to > land > in 6NT which should normally be cold, but goes down due to an > extreme card > distribution then the "damage" to opponents (by E-W instead > landing in a > favourable 3NT) is not caused by the irregularity as such but > by the cards. > (This is an important distinction which is pretty often > overlooked when > assessing "damage"). > > It seems to me that in most "normal" cases a final contract > of 3NT should > be > let to stand, either because it is not the best contract, or > because it is > an > obvious contract which East can reach with a direct bid, or > finally because > "damage" to NOS was caused by the way the cards lay, not by the > irregularity. > > Regards Sven If not for Wayne we probably could have used the words consequent and subsequent here. Thanks for your clear answer. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 22:10:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHBA0B06687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:10:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHB9oH06668 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:09:51 +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 16FvXK-000Cwh-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:02:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:35:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 5:56 PM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >>Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies >>to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was >>included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got >>shot down on that. > >This was addressed to Adam B., but not being shy I'm jumping in anyway! > >Who shot you down, Marv? What ammunition did they use? I've checked >the list archives -- I find no convincing arguments for this >position, nor any references to an official interpretation. > >Here's the text of the relevant part of 12C2: > >"When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a >result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a >non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable." > >"Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second >clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the >subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the >context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. > >If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the >OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we >should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS >bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." That is >certainly not implicit. The authors could not have intended that we >should understand that meaning or they would have stated it >explicitly. One could equally well guess the missing hypothetical >modifier is "had the pairs sat in opposite directions" or "had the >game been pinochle." > >The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not >occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the >Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought >to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors >even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that we generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your way. For Os the basis for adjustment is different from that for NOs. It is thus perverse to assume that part of the NOs definition applies to the Os when it does not say so. it is rare that it makes any difference, true. But that proves nothing. -- 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 Dec 17 22:46:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHBk8312082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:46:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHBjtH12051 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:45:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBHBcUm03074 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:38:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:38 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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: <002501c18369$8926a320$f0837ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > If my opponents bid something from which I am in a position to extract a > penalty of 800, while if they had not bid it I would be unable to score > more than 650, in what way have my opponents damaged my side? > > When the opponents commit an infraction that leaves me able only to > achieve a table result worth less than one I would have been able to > achieve absent the infraction, then the infraction has resulted in > damage; the amount of damage is the difference between the best result I > can achieve because of the infraction and the best result I was likely > (quiet at the back, Marvin - I know what it means) to have achieved > without the infraction. > > But when they commit an infraction that leaves me able to achieve a > result worth more than any I would have been able to achieve absent the > infraction, the infraction cannot reasonably be said to have resulted in > damage. Instead, it has resulted in advantage to my side. If I then fail > to achieve that superior result through my own ineptitude, the damage > has followed the infraction, but has not followed from the infraction - > in Kaplan's phrase, the damage was subsequent to, but not consequent > upon, the infraction. As I read the above it means that we can basically ignore what actually happened at the table after the infraction when assessing "is there damage" (assuming the TD isn't called back when the table result is better for the NOS than was possible absent the infraction). The only thing we need to consider is the net change in equity immediately prior and post infraction. If I have understood this correctly then the calculations below make sense (for total points scoring). Absent the infraction NOS will make 10 or 11 tricks in their vul 4S contract with an estimated 50/50 chance. Giving the NOS some "benefit of doubt" we calculate their equity to 70% of 650 + 30% of 620 or +641. a) NOS will get + 800 on any even remotely reasonable defence Net equity change = +159, no damage - no adjustments b) NOS will get +800 on the "obvious" lead, which we judge would be found 80+% of the time, and 500 otherwise. Expected score is 80% of 800 + 20% of 500 = 740. Net equity change = +99, no damage - no adjustments. c) NOS will get +800 on an "obvious" lead, "obvious" switch, which we judge would be found 50+% of the time, and 500 otherwise. Expected score is 50% of 800 + 50% of 500 = 650. Net equity change = +9, ostensibly no damage - no adjustments. However we could again give "benefit of doubt" weighting to NOS and use 45/55 for net equity of -6, =damage,=adjust. Extending the principle I guess that 20/30/50 chances for 1100/800/500 respectively would give net equity of +69 and also qualify as no damage. It seems to me that the results above are pretty different to the adjustments that would currently be given - although I don't think they could be considered "unfair". 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 Mon Dec 17 22:51:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHBpOY12720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:51:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHBpEH12694 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:51:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA07486; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:43:50 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Dec 17 12:41:03 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 <01KBZ47K4YHO002S60@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:43:11 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:43:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:43:11 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Wayne Burrows'" , 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 It seems naive to believe that people can be convinced to make 'our' distinction between subsequent and consequent damage if they don't want to. If I do remember well there have been philosophical and religious streams adopting determinisme, which says that everything starting with the big bang (which didn't 'exist' than, let us call it the creation of the world)is determined, predictable, no chance. Physicists nowadays probably can proof that such determinisme can't exist, but that time they couldn't know. This makes it rather likely that trying to convince people that we need a distinction between subsequent and consequent when trying to define the damage to be restored is not going to work. Why didn't I realize that before? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 17 23:14:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHCDea15949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:13:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHCDVH15933 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:13:32 +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, 17 Dec 2001 13:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: <047501c186f3$4dd40500$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:06:48 +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: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > In article > , Kooijman, A. writes > > > > > >> , Kooijman, A. writes > >> >I am reluctant to add problems to this forum, but I like to > >> get your opinion > >> >about the following: > >> > > >> >Your RHO in first seat opens 5clubs (all vulnerable), you > >> pass, LO passes > >> >and partner doubles after a long hesitation. If any, what > >> kind of UI do you > >> >receive? What authorized inf. does the double imply? > >> > > >> > > >> My opinion is that when a player makes an out of tempo bid, > >> rather than > >> a pass, the UI transmitted is not clear, and thus the actions of his > >> partner are much less constrained than where he makes a slow pass. In > >> this case, the player may have been considering Pass, Double; > >> or Double, Bid; or Pass, Double, Bid. In general a fast happy double will > >more > >> likely be for penalties (but can be based on Quick Tricks rather than > >> trumps,) and a slow doubtful double will show high cards, but the > >> actions which are excluded as a result can not be determined by the > >> advancer. > > > >If this is your opinion, why do you add your next sentence then? Shouldn't > >the idea of a LA wait till we have defined or described the kind of > >suggestion coming from the hesitation? That is the reason I didn't give you > >the hand of the partner of the doubler. He has xxx xxx KQxxx xx. Now we all > >will agree that pass is a logical alternative to making a bid. But that is > >only relevant when the bid is suggested (they play teams). So he bid 5D > >which makes, where 5CX makes as well. Quite a difference. > > > > > > Pass is definitely a LA, Bidding a 6 or 7 card > >> suit is also a > >> LA, particularly with a singleton or void club. I'm not inclined to > >> adjust in these circumstances, unless the action is clearly > >> both bizarre and successful. > >> > >> The AI aspect is that doubler thinks the contract is going down :) > > > >Which is not very interesting. With a hand on which I double 5C with the > >expectation of making a contract on the 5-level, I may have the expectation > >that 5C goes down as well, isn't it? > > > As ever one must ask oneself what would the player have done facing a > fast, happy double? He may well have passed. Faced with the same > decision a sizeable bunch of his peer group might well have passed too. > I'm inclined to adjust. Had he been 3361, I'd be inclined not to adjust. > > cheers john. Why would you adjust? Earlier in the thread there were about ten TD's voicing an opinion on what UI would/could have been transmitted. They don't seem to be able to come to a conclusion. The only UI that I see is that partner probably doesn't hold a classic double. Whether that means too much defense or too much offense (as appearantly was the case now), we can't decide. Bidding is, therefore, not 'demonstrably suggested' over passing and there is no reason to adjust. 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 Dec 17 23:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHCU7Q18078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:30:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHCTwH18063 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:29:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-26-187.btinternet.com ([213.122.26.187] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Fwmt-0003h2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:22:31 +0000 Message-ID: <009701c186f5$625c2500$bb1a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:21:39 -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 Tim wrote: > As I read the above it means that we can basically ignore what actually > happened at the table after the infraction when assessing "is there > damage" (assuming the TD isn't called back when the table result is > better for the NOS than was possible absent the infraction). We could, but there is a sub-text within the Laws to the effect that people whose fault things aren't should be treated rather more generously than strict considerations of equity would warrant (for example, if you can't play a board you get average plus, instead of your session average if this is less than average plus, or - which would be strictly equitable - a score based on a comparison between your final score and that of the pair against whom you would have played the board). Moreover, there is an (illogical) argument to the effect that if people cheat against you, then you are in some way deserving of protection from the consequences of your own ineptitude, for if they had not cheated, you would not have had a chance to display the said ineptitude. Finally, there is a (not entirely illogical) argument to the effect that whether or not a NOS is to suffer the consequences of its own ineptitude, an OS should not be permitted to profit from its own infraction - whether or not the infraction has resulted in damage. This places us, as Wayne and others have pointed out, in the position of saying that whereas an NOS has not been damaged by [as a consequence of] an infraction, an OS has derived benefit from (as a consequence of] it. All of this means that in general terms, we treat non-offenders more generously than strict considerations of equity would allow, and offenders more harshly. I don't have any particular problem with that (except, of course, when it allows some pairs or teams to "play" for more than 100% of the matchpoints or VPs available - but that is another matter!) All I would say is that if this approach is to persist, then some significant changes to the present wording of the Laws must take pl ace in order to enable 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 Tue Dec 18 03:42:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHGfhw26094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:41:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHGfUH26063 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:41:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-14-133.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.14.133] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16G0iK-000G06-00; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:34:05 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c18718$68cfd3a0$850ee150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:53:44 -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 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'" ; "David Burn" ; Sent: 17 December 2001 10:40 Subject: RE: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage > > > > I know that in Australia English football is vey popular and followed > intensively > on TV, but does this example help for guys from NZ? > +=+ Possibly. John Wignall is an Everton F.C. supporter and I understand this falls, loosely, within the definition of 'English football'.+=+ > > > > I have struggled to avoid mentioning 12c3, > because then the conclusion is that some > of us can't apply this > approach of adjusting scores. On the other hand it > should help us to convince zones that they need to > give the TD the authority to use 12c3 to get equity > results. > +=+ The view I take is that the use of 12C3 is possibly inadvertent; but the law exists and I do not think it unreasonable that regulating authorities, whilst sternly forbidding all and sundry to have anything to do with it, should be seen to make use of it when it suits. +=+ > > I am interested in the stuff presented in your top > TD course. Is it in a showable format? > +=+ I do not have it on screen, but I will certainly send it by snail mail. The course is a kind of short refresher course which helps to keep the top band of brothers together and provides an opportunity to look at anything they want to bring up as well. I can quote one question that we left unresolved to think more about: When 2H is bid in response to a 2D transfer is the 2H bid conventional? Or does it show a willingness to play in 2H - see definitions? This has nothing to do with alerts. The case put for discussion was, four players calling: 1NT - Pass - 2D* - 3C 2H** Director! [* alerted] [** not noticing the 3C bid. He held a small doubleton in Hearts. ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ton > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 03:42:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHGfeO26091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:41:41 +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-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 fBHGfSH26059 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:41:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-14-133.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.14.133] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16G0iI-000G06-00; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:34:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c18718$67b27cc0$850ee150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:17:48 -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 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: "'Marvin L. French'" ; Sent: 17 December 2001 10:15 Subject: RE: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage > > Let me ask Grattan for his reaction before you all > start attacking me. I might be completely wrong. > Quite a personal victory to admit that, probably > the result of the X-mas greetings I already received. > > ton > -- +=+ Well, I think your example is defensible and it shows that you, at least, had something in mind when these words were added. They were tacked on at the end of the discussion when I read out my note and someone said we should include this extra bit. I do not know that I thought about it then or since, other than to conclude it was a safe statement and provided appeals committees with a tool they could use if they found a use for it. [Sometimes I do not question the whims of the committee if I see them as doing little harm - indeed if they provide blml with an innocuous source of protracted multilateral correspondence they may well serve a useful purpose. :-) ] ~ 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 Dec 18 04:44:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHHhQf06309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:43:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHHhHH06290 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:43:17 +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 fBHHZrB19511 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:35:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c18721$4260df80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:35:38 -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: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Marvin L. French" > At 5:56 PM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies > >to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was > >included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got > >shot down on that. > > This was addressed to Adam B., but not being shy I'm jumping in anyway! > > Who shot you down, Marv? What ammunition did they use? I've checked > the list archives -- I find no convincing arguments for this > position, nor any references to an official interpretation. It was probably buried in an unrelated thread. Someone help out here, I don't remember who shot me down. I think I came up with an example auction, but I can't remember it, and can't imagine what it could have been. > > Here's the text of the relevant part of 12C2: > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a > result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a > non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second > clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the > subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the > context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. I don't know about the grammatical point, but I had for a long time read it your way without even considering the other possibility. Parallel construction (is that the right term) seems to call for it. Also, in the absence of a time constraint, one could start arguing about possible actions prior to the irregularity. Then someone told me (sounds like DWS) that I had no right to assume words that are not there. > > If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the > OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we > should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS > bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." That is > certainly not implicit. The authors could not have intended that we > should understand that meaning or they would have stated it > explicitly. One could equally well guess the missing hypothetical > modifier is "had the pairs sat in opposite directions" or "had the > game been pinochle." Or they could have said, "for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was (had been?) at all probable subsequent to the infraction." Here is a possible example for an adjustment on that basis if it was their intention. A player uses UI to take a 5H sacrifice over 4S. His LHO bids 5S, an unjustified, wild, gambling bid, LHO counting on redress if it isn't successful. His partner would surely have doubled 5H for 800. 5S goes down one, but result stands for the NOS. For the OS, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable "had the irregularity not occurred" is -620. Change that to "subsequent to the irregularity" and maybe they get -800. I believe the current WBFLC position is that an anulling action by the NOS is treated as not having happened when deciding on an OS adjustment. > > The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not > occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the > Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought > to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors > even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. > Nor can I find an example in the casebooks. Sometimes the authors think of a very unlikely possiblity that must be accommodated in the Laws. Anyway, I suggest to the LC that they reword L12C2 to make it clear that "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the OS as well as the NOS, or, alternatively, add "subsequent to the irregularity" for the OS. And while they're at it, they would do well to change "likely" to another adjective that won't be so widely misunderstood in ACBL-land. 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 Dec 18 04:50:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHHoMP07100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:50:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBHHoCH07082 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:50:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10192 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2001 17:42:47 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (. Clean. Processed in 1.57718 secs); 17 Dec 2001 17:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.205) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 17 Dec 2001 17:42:46 -0000 Message-ID: <01ed01c187d1$289ee0a0$4418b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:38:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Adam Wildavsky' ; Marvin L. French Cc: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:41 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) > > > Good morning to all of you, the thread is still going on! Good to see that, > otherwise weekends are in danger. > I agree (completely personally) with Adam that the lawmakers intended law > 12C2 to say what it does say. Which means that 12C2 does not make clear that > we can use my suggested way of calculating the results when some combination > of subsequent and consequent damage has occurred. Indeed. > Let me admit that, especially to Wayne. > But that was not the thread as I remember it. Wayne didn't accept the > concept of splitting damage in a caused-by-part and an > after-the-infraction-part. That is where my objection was aimed at. I understand the concept but I do not accept that that is what the law allows us to do. My view is always that the law should be changed if one is supposed to rule in a different manner not that a decree should come from on high defining "black" as "white" or something similar. Especially when such decrees are IMO not well promulgated. I guess this matter is addressed in COP but I would doubt if most tournament directors that I play under would be well aware of the details of that document. And it is not clear to me when the logic of the COP or other decree or regulation is contradictory to the promulgated law that the decree or regulation should take precedence. In the case of a regulation by a SO the law states that conflicting regulations are not legitimate. If on the other hand WBF rewrote a law or part thereof then promulgated that through Zones and NO it would be clear where the precedence should lie. With regard to split calculations, my personal view is that a less than most favourable likely result would be fair in some cases but that a table result outside the range of 'likely' results can be unfair to a NOS even when the NOS has contributed (even egregiously) to their poor result. Certainly I believe results outside the range of possible results without the irregularity are unfair. > > Let me remind you that this approach resulted in the ACBL in not being able > to adjust the score for the offending side either (they should get - 420 in > case b). Law 16A demanded damage to adjust the score. The WBFLC for this > reason decided that for the offending side subsequent damage for their > opponents should be included in the possible reasons to adjust the score. > I agree but the law allows that presently. The infraction resulted in damage so we adjust and for the OS the adjustment is ... > What I do agree in is that law 12 seems not to be written to calculate the > adjustments as we prefer to do it know. Doesn't seem to - it just doesn't allow the approach advocated or even any approach that makes a NOS liable for any subsequent errors. But that doesn't mean that the > approach as given is not the best possible. > Nor does it mean it is the best approach :-) As I see it there are three approaches assuming an infraction and the following : We should have had 620 in our 4h We could have had 800 in their 4sx We got 500 in the their 4sx 1. Laws as written: Adjust to 620 for NOS and OS 2. The suggested approach: NOS keep 500 and adjust to 620 for OS 3. Some inbetween approach NOS get no better than 620 but pay some penalty for their egregious error - judgement not mechanics will be needed. OS get 620 IMHO: Approach 1. is often generous to the NOS; Approach 2. will often be harsh on the NOS; Approach 3. could be fair but maybe impractical - hard to apply consistently. and (tongue in cheek) I don't care about the OS. > > ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 07:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHKvG404789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:57:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHKv7H04775 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:57:08 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B49538EB6; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:49:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:49:30 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was 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 10:35 AM +0000 12/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: >You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being >perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that >we generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your >way. I argue that the meaning of the text is, or ought to be, plain. You assert the same, and yet we interpret it differently. Let's have some reasoned dialogue, if you please. I have argued for a particular interpretation, and given my reasons. If you believe my interpretation is incorrect surely you have an alternative interpretation in mind, yet I am in the dark as to what it might be. Let me try to put it another way. The phrase "The most unfavorable result that was at all probable" is incomplete. It supposes something different to have happened than what actually happened. Since an infinite number of things could have happened but didn't, the clause requires a condition. What do you think that condition should be, and why do you think so? -- 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 Tue Dec 18 08:05:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHL5Gq05771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:05:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHL58H05760 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:05:08 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id A87538F0E; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:57:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:57:30 -0500 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: RE: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) 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 10:41 AM +0100 12/17/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: >I agree (completely personally) with Adam that the lawmakers >intended law 12C2 to say what it does say. We all agree with that, even DWS! The question is what does it say? >Which means that 12C2 does not make clear that we can use my >suggested way of calculating the results when some combination of >subsequent and consequent damage has occurred. I did not intend to discuss the Kaplan Doctrine, though I am prepared to do so. I've changed the subject accordingly. Do you mean to imply that the Kaplan Doctrine is embodied in the Laws in 12C2, if interpreted a certain way? I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. -- 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 Tue Dec 18 08:08:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHL7x206094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:07:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBHL7pH06077 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:07:51 +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 IAA01548; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:10:46 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:00:19 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Good dummy play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: "bthorp::.gov.au":"pcug.org.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:57:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 18/12/2001 07:51:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last night, my partner played in a contract of two-of-a-minor. As dummy, I dutifully placed clubs on the right. LHO found the killing defence to defeat Two Clubs. Unluckily, the contract was actually Two Diamonds, and LHO's defence was the only one to allow Two Diamonds to make. But the score could not be adjusted due to an infraction of L41D, since my hand was naturally void in diamonds. Even so, I had with malice aforethought deliberately selected the club suit to appear on my right, a good dummy play, but an infraction of L43A1(c). Not wishing to confuse the regular TD, I assessed this PP on myself: I would not be allowed to be dummy for the remainder of the session. I consequently (not subsequently) played our Moysian fits from the three-card holding. 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 Dec 18 08:45:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHLj5Z11511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:45:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHLitH11496 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:44:55 +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 QAA21408 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11942 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:37:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:37:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112172137.QAA11942@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a > result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a > non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second > clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the > subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the > context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. Why do you say subjunctive mood? It looks like past indicative to me, presumably referring to the instant just before the irregularity. I don't see any grammatical reason the qualifying phrase has to be understood for the second clause, nor do I believe it is desirable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 09:33:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHMWmb17471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:32:48 +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 fBHMWeH17457 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:32:41 +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 RAA23720 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA11987 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:25:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:25:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112172225.RAA11987@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: Kooijman, A. > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, > we decided. Let's make sure I understand what you decided. There are a couple of different ways to do this. Let's assume NS are the NOS and look at their scores. With the infraction: Table score (6Hx=) = -1210 = -18 IMPs. Expected score in 6H (no egregious error) = +100 = -11 IMPs. Without the infraction: Expected score in 4S+1 = +650 = 0 IMPs. So for the OS, you cancelled everything after the infraction and gave them -650. So far, so good. What would you have done if 6H had been due to go down 800 but didn't because of irrational defense? Does the OS get -650 or -800? > If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. So you have used NOS result = (table result) - (expected result in table contract) + (expected result with no infraction)] Of course each "result" is calculated in IMPs or matchpoints, not raw scores. Also, if the second term is positive (e.g., expected result was +800 for +4 IMPs), just use the table result. Is this the formula that is proposed? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 10:05:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHN5Gq21431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:05:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHN57H21420 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:05:08 +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 RAA24995 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:57:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA12046 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:57:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:57:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112172257.RAA12046@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] transfer completion a convention? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > When 2H is bid in response to a 2D transfer > is the 2H bid conventional? Or does it show a > willingness to play in 2H - see definitions? The first question above is an interesting one, but I don't think the second is relevant to answering it. If responder can pass the 2H transfer, then *of course* it shows willingness to play in 2H, but that doesn't help answer the first question, which is the one relevant to L27. What we need to know is whether the 2H bid shows anything *besides* willingness to play in some number of hearts or high card length or strength in hearts or some range of overall strength. These are the "allowed" meanings for a call not to be deemed a convention. (There are additional rules for passes: L30C). My own view is that if 2H is mandatory, it is certainly not a convention. It shows no information whatsoever, so how can it possibly "convey a meaning other than...?" If, on the other hand, 2H denies the values for a super-accept, things aren't so clear. It certainly "conveys a meaning," and that meaning (probably _shortness_ in hearts) most likely isn't one of the "allowed" ones. On the other hand, if interpreted literally, the convention definition makes nearly all opening bids in real bidding systems into conventions, and nobody wants that. (Note to David S.: that is _opening_ bids, not all bids. There are many bids that are not conventions, even with the literal definition.) I think the case could be argued either way, but my inclination would be to say that the bid probably is a convention unless the decision to superaccept is based only on overall strength, not heart length. It's a good thing these borderline cases are rare! Any chance the next laws could drop the whole distinction, at least for L27 purposes? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 10:14:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHNDum22565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:13:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHNDmH22543 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:13:48 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 8BC3F981B0; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:06:23 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200112172137.QAA11942@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200112172137.QAA11942@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:06:17 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was 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 4:37 PM -0500 12/17/01, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky >> "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a >> result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a >> non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the >> irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most >> unfavorable result that was at all probable." >> > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second >> clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the >> subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the >> context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. > >Why do you say subjunctive mood? I was thinking of the qualifying phrase, "Had the irregularity not occurred". >It looks like past indicative to me, presumably referring to the >instant just before the irregularity. A) Why do you presume that? I see nothing in the text to suggest it. B) Assuming it were implicit, what would it mean? >I don't see any grammatical reason the qualifying phrase has to be >understood for the second clause, nor do I believe it is desirable. I'm not addressing desirability -- I'd simply like to establish the meaning of the current law. -- 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 Tue Dec 18 10:28:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHNS5j24158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:28:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHNRvH24139 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:27:57 +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 SAA25692 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA12077 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:20:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:20:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112172320.SAA12077@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > >Why do you say subjunctive mood? > > I was thinking of the qualifying phrase, "Had the irregularity not occurred". Isn't that circular logic? > >It looks like past indicative to me, presumably referring to the > >instant just before the irregularity. > > A) Why do you presume that? I see nothing in the text to suggest it. The verb 'was' is normally past indicative. I still don't see why you think otherwise. The past moment referred to must to be determined from context. > B) Assuming it were implicit, what would it mean? See my other recent post. Suppose the OS is due for -800, but the NOS revokes. Can you assign -800? Or some other bad result that includes the infraction but not an irrational play 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 Dec 18 10:46:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBHNkFJ26281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:46:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBHNk5H26260 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:46:07 +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 XAA30703 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:38:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:37:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112172225.RAA11987@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112172225.RAA11987@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 <200112172225.RAA11987@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >From: Kooijman, A. >> The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair had played 6H >> doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a hesitation and >> we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. So the adjusted >> score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But >> defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the appeal committe >> tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any play leading to 12 >> tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the damage was subsequent, >> we decided. > >Let's make sure I understand what you decided. There are a couple of >different ways to do this. Let's assume NS are the NOS and look at >their scores. > >With the infraction: >Table score (6Hx=) = -1210 = -18 IMPs. >Expected score in 6H (no egregious error) = +100 = -11 IMPs. > >Without the infraction: >Expected score in 4S+1 = +650 = 0 IMPs. > >So for the OS, you cancelled everything after the infraction and >gave them -650. So far, so good. > >What would you have done if 6H had been due to go down 800 but didn't >because of irrational defense? Does the OS get -650 or -800? > >> If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the >> score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one you get +100 >> which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was -650 added with - >> 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the consequent damage was 11 >> imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, which became the >> result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > >So you have used > NOS result = (table result) - (expected result in table contract) > + (expected result with no infraction)] > >Of course each "result" is calculated in IMPs or matchpoints, not raw >scores. Also, if the second term is positive (e.g., expected result >was +800 for +4 IMPs), just use the table result. > >Is this the formula that is proposed? >-- This is the formula I would like the EBU to use. It doesn't however. I continue plowing (sic) my lone (sic) furrow. Cheers john >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Dec 18 18:45:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBI7hpM04722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:43:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBI7hfH04693 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:43:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-75-206.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.75.206] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16GEnL-000Jun-00; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:36:12 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c18796$df889940$ce4be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 07:56:02 -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: "Marvin L. French" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 6:24 AM Subject: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) > > Here's the text of the relevant part of 12C2: > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score > in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, > the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred > or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result > that was at all probable." > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood > for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. > This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has > been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. > It's meaningless without a modifying clause. > +=+ I think 'must be understood' overstates the argument. "When................the score is for the non-offending side the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" "When...............the score is for the offending side the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". I do not see that these separate statements are 'perverse'. For the OS I doubt that the law wishes to rule out a result that was at all probable reached via the irregularity, if that were the most unfavourable. ~ 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 Dec 18 19:28:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBI8Sc212291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:28:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBI8SSH12268 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:28:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA11058; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:21:02 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Dec 18 09:18:09 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 <01KC0BECTWUO002WH7@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:20:17 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:20:12 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:20:15 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) To: "'Adam Wildavsky'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: 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 > > At 10:41 AM +0100 12/17/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >I agree (completely personally) with Adam that the lawmakers > >intended law 12C2 to say what it does say. Adam: > We all agree with that, even DWS! The question is what does it say? > > >Which means that 12C2 does not make clear that we can use my > >suggested way of calculating the results when some combination of > >subsequent and consequent damage has occurred. > > I did not intend to discuss the Kaplan Doctrine, though I am prepared > to do so. I've changed the subject accordingly. Do you mean to imply > that the Kaplan Doctrine is embodied in the Laws in 12C2, if > interpreted a certain way? That is an easy question isn't it? Any doctrine is embodied in any law if the interpretation of that law is made likewise and accepted. What I said in the message above is that we need a lot of work interpretation wise to have 12c2 supporting our view of splitting subsequent and consequent damage when deciding the adjusted score. Then it is much easier to include 12c3. But the problem is that some zones don't use that. > > I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is > implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric > Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated > certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they > were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. Which is true, I used weighted scores that time based on the laws we then had and went around spreading equity everywhere. Rather disappointing when the '87 set of laws arrived and the big bosses started telling us (TD's) to rule in favor of the NOS and leave equity to the appeal committees. A disastrous set back. In my opinion the approach Kaplan gave is completely lawful when dealing with the definition of damage, being split in subsequent and consequent. The problem is the calculation. And as often is the case the conclusion must be that we didn't realise that this concept of damage needed rewording 12C2. Without doing this the interpretation may cause questionmarks. But still should be accepted, in my opinion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 19:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBI8iJe14867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:44:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBI8i8H14847 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:44:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA21272; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:36:43 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Dec 18 09:33:56 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 <01KC0BY45DOQ002VAV@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:36:13 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:36:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:36:10 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Marvin L. French" , Adam Wildavsky Cc: 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 > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood > > for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. Words like 'perverse' as clear as they seem to be hardly ever support the opinion given. We are so suspicious. Can somebody explain me why this sub thread has been started? To be honest I don't remember any case in which the adjusted score for the OS was not based on a result had the irregularity not occurred. Once in a while the ACBL starts deviating from this priciple. Not for the OS but for the NOS, when they want to give them the so called 'normal'contract which the offenders are not allowed to play because there is a LA. So my impression is that we have an academic discussion here, in which I tend to follow those who say that 'had the irregularity not occurred' doesn't necessarily apply for the offenders (reading the English language I mean, in practise we include it automatically) ton > > This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has > > been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. > > It's meaningless without a modifying clause. > > > +=+ I think 'must be understood' overstates the argument. > > "When................the score is for the non-offending side > the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred" > "When...............the score is for the offending side the > most unfavourable result that was at all probable". > > I do not see that these separate statements are 'perverse'. > For the OS I doubt that the law wishes to rule out a result > that was at all probable reached via the irregularity, if that > were the most unfavourable. ~ 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 Dec 18 20:46:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBI9kSX24040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 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 stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBI9kIH24025 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:46:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA09555; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:38:53 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Dec 18 10:36:07 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 <01KC0E4QRML8002W51@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:38:03 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:37:55 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:37:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Kooijman, A. > > The national appeal committee got a case in which a pair > had played 6H > > doubled (not vulnerable) which made. They got there after a > hesitation and > > we decided that their opponents should have played in 4S. > So the adjusted > > score for the opponents was based on minus 4S + 1 (vulnerable). But > > defending the other pair had made an egregiuous error (the > appeal committe > > tried to reconstruct the play but didn't come up with any > play leading to 12 > > tricks), which turned 10 or 11 tricks into 12. So the > damage was subsequent, > > we decided. Steve: > Let's make sure I understand what you decided. There are a couple of > different ways to do this. Let's assume NS are the NOS and look at > their scores. > > With the infraction: > Table score (6Hx=) = -1210 = -18 IMPs. > Expected score in 6H (no egregious error) = +100 = -11 IMPs. > > Without the infraction: > Expected score in 4S+1 = +650 = 0 IMPs. > > So for the OS, you cancelled everything after the infraction and > gave them -650. So far, so good. > > What would you have done if 6H had been due to go down 800 but didn't > because of irrational defense? Does the OS get -650 or -800? So here we have an example of 'worst at all probably with or without added 'had the irregularity not occurred'. I have never given an adjusted score not based on a result had the irregularity not occurred. And my personal opinion is that we shouldn't do that. > > > If you are entitled to play 4S for 11 tricks the > > score is 650 resulting in a wash. If you play 6Hx minus one > you get +100 > > which leads to - 550 for - 11 imps. The table result was > -650 added with - > > 1210 for 6Hx making, leading to - 18 imps. So the > consequent damage was 11 > > imps with redress and the subsequent damage was 7 imps, > which became the > > result on the board for them: - 7 imps. > > So you have used > NOS result = (table result) - (expected result in table contract) > + (expected result with no infraction)] > > Of course each "result" is calculated in IMPs or matchpoints, not raw > scores. Also, if the second term is positive (e.g., expected result > was +800 for +4 IMPs), just use the table result. > > Is this the formula that is proposed? The approach as proposed leads to this formula, yes. I hope that TD's keep thinking when calculating this result, because all these plusses and minusses could lead to strange outcomes. Don't start to think about using it when there is no subsequent damage element involved. And be tolerent when judging the possible subsequent damage. Mistakes are normal and when a pair expects to play a vulnerable 4H but has to defend an illegal 4S non vulnerable it has the right to try for the 4th undertrick. Loosing the 3rd one doing so is not automatically egregious in my opinion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 18 21:35:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIAYtx00606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:34:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBIAYkH00581 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:34:47 +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 LAA04957; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:27:05 +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 LAA07026; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:27:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011218112142.00a9a240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:29:01 +0100 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Good dummy play 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 07:57 18/12/2001 +1000, you wrote: >Last night, my partner played in a contract of >two-of-a-minor. As dummy, I dutifully placed >clubs on the right. > >LHO found the killing defence to defeat Two >Clubs. Unluckily, the contract was actually Two >Diamonds, and LHO's defence was the only one to >allow Two Diamonds to make. > >But the score could not be adjusted due to an >infraction of L41D, since my hand was naturally >void in diamonds. > >Even so, I had with malice aforethought >deliberately selected the club suit to appear on >my right, a good dummy play, but an infraction >of L43A1(c). AG : only two suits could appear on your right : spades and clubs, if you follow the usual (non-compulsory) policy of alternating blacks and reds. Could the fact that you arranged them CHS rather than SHC be an indication to your partner ? The only law that you could, IMHO, have gone against is L73D2, and I'm not sure your case fits in there. >Not wishing to confuse the regular TD, I >assessed this PP on myself: I would not be >allowed to be dummy for the remainder of the >session. AG : for the abovementioned reasons, I guess you've found a reason for hogging the deals, about as good as those mentioned by Mollo, ie not good at all. Aha, I've found what was your sin : self-serving argument. 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 Dec 18 23:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBICau323144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:36:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBICakH23118 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:36:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-22-213.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.22.213]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16GJN1-0006FZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:29:19 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000501c18718$68cfd3a0$850ee150@pacific> References: <000501c18718$68cfd3a0$850ee150@pacific> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:29:16 +0000 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 3:53 pm +0000 17/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >I can quote one question >that we left unresolved to think more about: > > When 2H is bid in response to a 2D transfer >is the 2H bid conventional? Or does it show a >willingness to play in 2H - see definitions? > This has nothing to do with alerts. The case >put for discussion was, four players calling: > 1NT - Pass - 2D* - 3C > 2H** Director! > >[* alerted] >[** not noticing the 3C bid. He held a small >doubleton in Hearts. ] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Can somebody explain to me what the phrase "(or in the last denomination named)" means in the context of the definition of a convention? -- -- 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 Dec 18 23:53:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBICraZ26076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:53:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBICrQH26051 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:53:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBICjtw21161; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:55 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:55 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBICjtN14268; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:55 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:55 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 MAA03643; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:55 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA16676; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:54 GMT Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:54 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200112181245.MAA16676@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: gordonrainsford@btinternet.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Tue Dec 18 12:33:30 2001 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > Mime-Version: 1.0 > X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:29:16 +0000 > To: > From: Gordon Rainsford > Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > At 3:53 pm +0000 17/12/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >I can quote one question > >that we left unresolved to think more about: > > > > When 2H is bid in response to a 2D transfer > >is the 2H bid conventional? Or does it show a > >willingness to play in 2H - see definitions? > > This has nothing to do with alerts. The case > >put for discussion was, four players calling: > > 1NT - Pass - 2D* - 3C > > 2H** Director! > > > >[* alerted] > >[** not noticing the 3C bid. He held a small > >doubleton in Hearts. ] > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Can somebody explain to me what the phrase "(or in the last > denomination named)" means in the context of the definition of a > convention? A pass, double, or redouble does not name a denomination, so the phrase "(or in the last denomination named)" indicates that the conventionality of a pass, double or redouble relates to the willingness to play in the denomination of the last bid (as it can not relate to the denomination named in the call itself). I guess that a pass before the opening bid is not conventional if it shows willingness to pass out the board [pass the board out]. The conventionality of an inadmissable double/redouble before the opening bid is probably moot. 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 Dec 19 03:34:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIGYEN06855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:34:14 +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.tiscali.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 fBIGY5H06835 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:34:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-5-223.5800-3.access.uk.worldonline.com ([62.64.142.223] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16GN1n-000PA1-00; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:23:40 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c187e0$87a8df60$df8e403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Steve Willner" References: <200112172257.RAA12046@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] transfer completion a convention? Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:24:03 -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 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: 17 December 2001 22:57 Subject: [BLML] transfer completion a convention? > > What we need to know is whether the 2H bid > shows anything *besides* willingness to play > in some number of hearts or high card length > or strength in hearts or some range of overall > strength. These are the "allowed" meanings > for a call not to be deemed a convention. (There are additional rules for passes: L30C). > > My own view is that if 2H is mandatory, it is > certainly not a convention. It shows no > information whatsoever, so how can it possibly "convey a meaning other than...?" > +=+ I think these statements are well reasoned ~ 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 Dec 19 04:18:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIHIJG13427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 04:18:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBIHIAH13397 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 04:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-177-250.btinternet.com ([213.1.177.250] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16GNk1-0006yN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:09:22 +0000 Message-ID: <008a01c187e6$9b035800$fab101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200112181245.MAA16676@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is completion of a transfer a convention? [was: lots of things it ought not to have been] Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:08:22 -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: > A pass, double, or redouble does not name a denomination, so the > phrase "(or in the last denomination named)" indicates that the > conventionality of a pass, double or redouble relates to the > willingness to play in the denomination of the last bid (as it can > not relate to the denomination named in the call itself). Again, it is rather difficult to write unambiguous language. Would we say that "South played in spades" if East was declarer in a contract of 4S? We would not. Thus, when South passes East's bid of 4S, South is not expressing a willingness to play in the last denomination named - hence, his pass is (strictly speaking) a convention. Of course, "we all know what it means" - but then, we all know what a lot of things mean; the trouble is that some of us know that they mean something different from what the rest of us know that they mean. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - the next edition of the Laws should be gone through by a patent lawyer. Then at least we'll have something such that we do all really know what it means - at least, until the WBFLC starts producing minutes. 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 Dec 19 05:17:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIIH5E25336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:17:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIIGjH25302 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:16:46 +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 16GOg0-00043L-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:09:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:46:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 10:35 AM +0000 12/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being >>perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that >>we generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your >>way. > >I argue that the meaning of the text is, or ought to be, plain. You >assert the same, and yet we interpret it differently. > >Let's have some reasoned dialogue, if you please. I have argued for a >particular interpretation, and given my reasons. If you believe my >interpretation is incorrect surely you have an alternative >interpretation in mind, yet I am in the dark as to what it might be. > >Let me try to put it another way. The phrase "The most unfavorable >result that was at all probable" is incomplete. It supposes something >different to have happened than what actually happened. Since an >infinite number of things could have happened but didn't, the clause >requires a condition. What do you think that condition should be, and >why do you think so? I think it is complete. -- 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 Dec 19 05:17:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIIGwM25326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:16:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIIGfH25289 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:16:42 +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 16GOfu-00043R-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:09:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:34:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >I am interested in the stuff presented in your top TD course. Is it in a >showable format? Of course. However, there is a small proviso in distributing it to interested parties: it is used twice because the TDs with the exception of Max Bavin and myself attend whichever one of two courses they prefer. So I am prepared to allow it to be given to people who will *not* publish it at this time. While I shall do that if asked, I would prefer that people are patient. After next July I have no problem with all the material being discussed as widely as possible, so I prefer people to wait until then before asking for copies. I notice that Grattan has published one example. While I am sure he did not mean to compromise our course in any way, I know of at least a couple of TDs who read BLML and will come to these problems in July: I should prefer they come to them without already having seen them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 05:17:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIIH2f25332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:17:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIIGiH25299 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:16:45 +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 16GOg0-00043M-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:09:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:42:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <009701c186f5$625c2500$bb1a7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <009701c186f5$625c2500$bb1a7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Moreover, there is an (illogical) argument to the effect that if people >cheat against you, then you are in some way deserving of protection from >the consequences of your own ineptitude, for if they had not cheated, >you would not have had a chance to display the said ineptitude. I am not sure that it is illogical, though it may not be desirable. We are playing a competitive game, after all, and a level playing field has some advantages. Suppose that a certain easy defence is needed by E/W against a Grand Slam in an imp pairs. No E/W pair finds it, thus showing their total ineptitude! Fortunately, the N/S pairs are hardly more ept [is that a word?] and all except one fail to reach the Grand Slam. The one that does uses a certain well-known convention, Hesitation Blackwood, and the extra efficiency of this convention means they can co-operate better, and the Grand Slam is reached. It does not seem entirely fair that the E/W pair who let the Grand Slam through should suffer from their ineptitude. After all, they defended as did everyone else. Of course, I have no problem with their adjusted score being to thirteen tricks in a lower contract. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 05:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIIwsq02333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:58:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBIIwkH02312 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:58:46 +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 NAA29481 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19138 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:51:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:51:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > It does not seem entirely fair that the E/W pair who let the Grand > Slam through should suffer from their ineptitude. After all, they > defended as did everyone else. > > Of course, I have no problem with their adjusted score being to > thirteen tricks in a lower contract. Perhaps a slight modification will help to focus our discussion. Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW revoke and lose their ace! What now? The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The revoke damage is one trick in the play. As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign as follows: OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or I suppose you could let them keep the table score. NOS: 7H= (table result stands) The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction but not the error. Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? (This is deliberately a very simple case with no bridge judgment issues. I'm trying to see whether or not we agree on the legal principles involved.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 06:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIJfDu10397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:41:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIJf5H10376 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:41:05 +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 fBIJXdB10645 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:33:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002201c187fa$d9be84c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:32:47 -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." > > At 10:41 AM +0100 12/17/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >I agree (completely personally) with Adam that the lawmakers > > >intended law 12C2 to say what it does say. > > > Adam: > > > We all agree with that, even DWS! The question is what does it say? > > > > >Which means that 12C2 does not make clear that we can use my > > >suggested way of calculating the results when some combination of > > >subsequent and consequent damage has occurred. > > > > I did not intend to discuss the Kaplan Doctrine, though I am prepared > > to do so. I've changed the subject accordingly. Do you mean to imply > > that the Kaplan Doctrine is embodied in the Laws in 12C2, if > > interpreted a certain way? > > That is an easy question isn't it? Any doctrine is embodied in any law if > the interpretation of that law is made likewise and accepted. > What I said in the message above is that we need a lot of work > interpretation wise to have 12c2 supporting our view of splitting subsequent > and consequent damage when deciding the adjusted score. Then it is much > easier to include 12c3. But the problem is that some zones don't use > that. WTP? Can't you just use L72B1 for the OS (L12C2 applies) and tell the NOS they weren't damaged, result stands? L72B1 doesn't say that damage has to result for an adjustment to be in order, only that an irregularity "would be likely to damage" and it "gained an advantage." "Gained an advantage" is not synonymous with "damaged"; one can exist without the other. > > > > I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is > > implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric > > Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated > > certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they > > were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. > > > Which is true, I used weighted scores that time based on the laws we then > had and went around spreading equity everywhere. Rather disappointing when > the '87 set of laws arrived and the big bosses started telling us (TD's) to > rule in favor of the NOS and leave equity to the appeal committees. A > disastrous set back. > > In my opinion the approach Kaplan gave is completely lawful when dealing > with the definition of damage, being split in subsequent and consequent. The > problem is the calculation. And as often is the case the conclusion must be > that we didn't realise that this concept of damage needed rewording 12C2. > Without doing this the interpretation may cause questionmarks. But still > should be accepted, in my opinion. The primary meaning of "split" is not a division into parts or shares, but total cleavage. For the NOS, damage is either a direct consequence of, or merely subsequent to, the irregularity. Surely that's what Kaplan had in mind, not some convoluted arithmetic to apportion shares of consequent and subsequent damage. Arithmetic, by the way, that is far beyond the capability of any but a few TDs. Or should every such irregularity go to an AC composed of bridge mathematicians? No need to change the wording, except maybe to improve the vocabulary and syntax. 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 Dec 19 08:03:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIL2vD24986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:02:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIL2nH24969 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:02:49 +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 IAA19986 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:05:32 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:55:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Noun or tautology? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:51:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/12/2001 07:45:52 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a previous thread, I suggested that the word *tournaments* in L72A1 was a noun. That is, the word meant that the NOS had to be strict with the OS in high-level events, but could be lenient in low-level, non-tournament events. Grattan successfully argued that *tournaments* was, in effect, a tautology, and that _all_ duplicate bridge events were tournaments. Last night, my expert partner and I were practising our complex relay system, in preparation for the forthcoming National Open Teams. We were playing at the most social of Canberra's three ABF-affiliated bridge clubs. After one long and highly artificial relay auction, I signed off in 3NT. LHO led. But pard had artificially bid 1NT, making this an OLOOT. Pard is an anti-Grattanista, so he simply waved the lead away, and let RHO lead without penalty. Question 1: As dummy, I may not call the TD until after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Is unauthorised cancellation of an irregularity drawing attention to it? Question 2: After an OLOOT, one option is that I play the hand. When do I become dummy, thus preventing unrestricted summoning of the TD? Question 3: If Pard had been a Grattanista, could he have requested the TD to waive the OLOOT penalty under L81C8, on the grounds that our complex system contributed to the OLOOT? 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 Dec 19 08:50:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBILndw03459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:49:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBILnUH03438 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:49:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBILfvH15825 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:41:57 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200112182141.fBILfvH15825@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Noun or tautology? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:41:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Dec 19, 2001 07:51:45 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] 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 If you partner was supposed to be the declarer, then your partner gets five options, one of which is to accept the lead from his right, have you table the dummy and then play from his hand around towards dummy (L54B1). The laws specifically prohibit a player from waiving any penalties that are assigned due to irregulatities (L10A). A club manager or club director can choose to waive the ruling or penalty and allow what the player wants to do,b but the player does not have the right to do so. At the time of the irregularity, you have not yet become dummy and have the right to summon the director. It is only when your partner has selected one of the five options and establishes you to be the dummy that you are actually the dummy. Since one option is to table his hand and become dummy, you are not yet the dummy (he could still be the dummy). So, I believe that you are entitled to summon the director. However, according to the definition section of the laws, the dummy is "1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced." However, I believe that with the five options for a OLOOT, that you still retain the right to call the director until your partner decides who will declare. -Ted. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:51:45 +1000 > > In a previous thread, I suggested that the word > *tournaments* in L72A1 was a noun. That is, the > word meant that the NOS had to be strict with the > OS in high-level events, but could be lenient in > low-level, non-tournament events. > > Grattan successfully argued that *tournaments* > was, in effect, a tautology, and that _all_ > duplicate bridge events were tournaments. > > Last night, my expert partner and I were > practising our complex relay system, in > preparation for the forthcoming National Open > Teams. We were playing at the most social of > Canberra's three ABF-affiliated bridge clubs. > > After one long and highly artificial relay > auction, I signed off in 3NT. LHO led. But > pard had artificially bid 1NT, making this an > OLOOT. Pard is an anti-Grattanista, so he > simply waved the lead away, and let RHO lead > without penalty. > > Question 1: As dummy, I may not call the TD > until after attention has been drawn to an > irregularity. Is unauthorised cancellation of > an irregularity drawing attention to it? > > Question 2: After an OLOOT, one option is that > I play the hand. When do I become dummy, thus > preventing unrestricted summoning of the TD? > > Question 3: If Pard had been a Grattanista, > could he have requested the TD to waive the > OLOOT penalty under L81C8, on the grounds that > our complex system contributed to the OLOOT? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 09:08:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIM7h906533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:07:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBIM7ZH06514 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:07:35 +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 fBIM07i43211 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:00:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011218164908.00b8d650@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:02:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <200112181851.NAA19138@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 01:51 PM 12/18/01, Steve wrote: >Perhaps a slight modification will help to focus our discussion. >Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, >the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW >revoke and lose their ace! What now? > >The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The >revoke damage is one trick in the play. > >As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign >as follows: > >OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) > >Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the >infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or >I suppose you could let them keep the table score. > >NOS: 7H= (table result stands) > >The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction >but not the error. > >Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? I will argue for giving the NOS 6H+1, unless they can somehow convince me that they would likely not have let the 13th trick get away had they been defending against 6H, in which case I will give them 6H=. The reasoning for arguing thus is simple: I must give the NOS "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". As I would be ruling in the ACBL, I lack the authority under L12C3 to do anything else. Until recently, I'd have given the OS 6H+1, with a similar caveat (unless I'm convinced that a better defense against 6H is "at all probable", in which case 6H=). That's because I, like others, had always assumed that the words "had the irregularity not occurred" apply to the OS as well as the NOS. But now I await the outcome of our debate in the "12C2 Interpretation" thread; perhaps I will learn that the OS should get 7H-1. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 09:53:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIMql113894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:52:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBIMqcH13864 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:52:38 +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 fBIMkrj00855 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:46:53 -0900 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:44:33 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <000501c18718$68cfd3a0$850ee150@pacific> 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, 17 Dec 2001, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > When 2H is bid in response to a 2D transfer > is the 2H bid conventional? Or does it show a > willingness to play in 2H - see definitions? > This has nothing to do with alerts. The case > put for discussion was, four players calling: > 1NT - Pass - 2D* - 3C > 2H** Director! > > [* alerted] > [** not noticing the 3C bid. He held a small > doubleton in Hearts. ] I remain puzzled at how much controversy this type of question stirs up on this list... no matter how many times we revisit it we always seem to have many voices on both sides of the question. The quoted example, I believe, is exactly the same as asking if 1NT - P - 2D - P - 2H is conventional, assuming we accept the testimony tht opener did not notice the 3C bid. I do not play super-accepts with my regular partner, so for me the answer is very clearcut: I had no choice about bidding 2H. Bidding 2H conveyed absolutely nothing at all about my hand. If you can't tell me what "message other than..." my call carries, you can't claim it is a convention. (If I have a real 1NT opener, I am willing to play 2H opposite a normal 2D response; but it makes no difference at all if I am willing to play in hearts, or if I have any hearts - only that there is no OTHER message carried by the 2H call.) If you superaccept with 4 trumps and a maximum, there is a very mild negative inference from bidding only 2H. This is akin to the way in which a Standard American 1H opening denies possession of five spades. (Well, for some of us it does - insert a proviso about strong 5611 hands if you want.) Any hairsplitter who argues that these negative inferences make these calls conventions, is claiming almost EVERY call is a convention, because all calls carry negative inferences from the failure to do something else. I have some sympathy for someone who takes the position that all calls are conventional, though that completely defeats the purpose of defining conventions. I have almost no sympathy for someone who thinks Call X is conventional because of a negative inference but Call Y is not. If you always superaccept with 4, so that 2H denies possession of a fourth heart, the negative inferences are stronger. Shrug. There is one downside to the "negative inferences alone never create a conventional call" argument. In many sequences there is a catchall bid that merely denies the ability to make any other call. Most of these (1H pass 2D Pass 2NT playing Bergen 2/1, 2H playing Lawrence 2/1, for instance), never raise eyebrows and we never hear anyone screaming to treat them as conventions. Some others (2D Waiting over 2C strong) we are accustomed to calling conventional, but I'd not mind if we accepted that they were "no-message" bids. I hope most will accept that completion of a transfer is not conventional. I am not under any illusions that you will all accept waiting bids, Herbert negatives, and suchlike, as non-conventional. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 10:08:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBIN7q216600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f90.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBIN7hH16569 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:00:12 -0800 Received: from 172.151.218.156 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:00:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.151.218.156] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is completion of a transfer a convention? [was: lots of things it ought not to have been] Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:00:12 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2001 23:00:12.0995 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0003930:01C18817] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Robin wrote: > > A pass, double, or redouble does not name a denomination, so the > > phrase "(or in the last denomination named)" indicates that the > > conventionality of a pass, double or redouble relates to the > > willingness to play in the denomination of the last bid (as it can > > not relate to the denomination named in the call itself). > >Again, it is rather difficult to write unambiguous language. Would we >say that "South played in spades" if East was declarer in a contract of >4S? We would not. True, we would probably say "south defended in spades." Colloquialisms aside, south is still playing in a spade contract. "Play" is in the definitions of the laws and makes no pretense that the word applies to declarer only. (Of course, all the definitions make play a noun rather than a verb.) >Thus, when South passes East's bid of 4S, South is not >expressing a willingness to play in the last denomination named - hence, >his pass is (strictly speaking) a convention. Of course, "we all know >what it means" - but then, we all know what a lot of things mean; the >trouble is that some of us know that they mean something different from >what the rest of us know that they mean. It seems clear enough. When pass, double, or redouble show anything beyond a willingness to play where the auction stands they are conventional. South's pass of East's 4S is not conventional. Pass in a D0P1 situation, weak nt-(X)-Pass as an escape sequence, fert 1-level overcalls (*shudder*), 2C-(bananas)-Pass showing values, and other such passes are conventional. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 10:51:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBINpX723927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:51:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBINpOH23901 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:51:24 +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 fBINhvm23497 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:43:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005201c1881d$d5b19a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011218164908.00b8d650@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:42:46 -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 > Steve wrote: > > >Perhaps a slight modification will help to focus our discussion. > >Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, > >the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW > >revoke and lose their ace! What now? > > > >The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The > >revoke damage is one trick in the play. > > > >As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign > >as follows: > > > >OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) > > > >Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the > >infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or > >I suppose you could let them keep the table score. > > > >NOS: 7H= (table result stands) > > > >The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction > >but not the error. > > > >Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? > Assuming the revoke cannot be attributed to the irregularity, 7H= for the NOS, who were not damaged by the infraction. They damaged themselves. Adjust the OS score to 6H+1, since the revoke had nothing to do with the infraction. Principle: You don't change the play of the cards unless the play was adversely affected by the irregularity, with benefit of doubt to the NOS. I bid 7H illegally and make it by merely poor play of the opponents, no revoke, etc. Is it going to be said that I get adjusted to 6H= if the poor defense was rather improbable, while the NOS get -6H+1? Do you see where this would lead? In the case of a wild or gambling action (e.g., a "double shot") by the NOS that went awry, it surely will be decided that the action was affected by the infraction. Take that away when adjusting for the OS, sure, but don't take away a revoke or merely poor action that cannot be attributed 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 Wed Dec 19 10:59:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBINxD225282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:59:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBINx4H25261 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:59:04 +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 fBINpcm26545 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:51:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005801c1881e$e793bce0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:51:21 -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: "Gordon Bower" > > I hope most will accept that completion of a transfer is not > conventional. Gordon's arguments are so logical that I can't see how anyone can disagree with them. Not I, for sure. > I am not under any illusions that you will all accept > waiting bids, Herbert negatives, and suchlike, as non-conventional. All definitely conventions. I don't see that these relate to your main argument. It is not their lack of information that makes them a convention, but the fact that you are bidding a suit you don't have, or one that partner isn't known to have. 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 Dec 19 11:14:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ0EJF27972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:14:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJ0EAH27952 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:14:11 +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 fBJ08Qj04717 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:08:26 -0900 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:06:06 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk OK, I will don my fireproof suit, and attempt my simpleminded interpretation of the laws. On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, > the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW > revoke and lose their ace! What now? > > The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The > revoke damage is one trick in the play. > > As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign > as follows: > > OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) > Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the > infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or > I suppose you could let them keep the table score. > > NOS: 7H= (table result stands) > > The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction > but not the error. > Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ L73F sends you directly to L12. L16A2 tells the players what to do if they suspect UI-in-general has been used, and in L16A2 we ask if an infraction of law has resulted in damage. L73F doesn't do that; it says if someone chooses an illegal alternative, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Now, L12C2: For a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occured. Period. Leaving the contract at 7H for the NOS is not an option, no matter how badly they defended at the table. You have to use your judgment as to how badly you think this pair would defend had the infraction not occurred. I fear class of player does matter (but that's another thread!) In DWS's IMP Pairs case, you can argue for 6H with or without the overtrick depending on what you think is "likely." The revoke makes it worse, not better. If you think the revoke is part of the now-voided play, you adjust to 6H making. If you think the revoke is a separate infraction, to be dealt with apart from selecting a contract, you adjust the contract to 6H and then assess the revoke penalty. I can see a good case for treating it either way. Back to L12C2 now: For an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. I read this to mean "..that was at all probable whether the infraction happened or not," which effectively means "if you get a bad score as a result of your infraction you keep it; if you gain from your infraction you get the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had you not perpetrated the infraction." In this case, I'd assign the OS 6H making 6. I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks 7H down 1 is the right ruling. I just prefer the reading that takes us closer to a normal result. (Imagine the 5H-over-4S case: I'd rather adjust 300 to a normal 620, than to an achievable but not achieved 1100 which bears no more resemblence to what was supposed to happen than the 300 did.) --- It's unusual that the director gets involved at all if the NOS has benefitted from an infraction. But it does occasionally happen. I can read L73F as telling me to take away a NOS's cold top and instead give them a normal though good result on a board. I have on occasion been told by (hyper?)actively ethical NOS that they did not wish to have their random top forced upon them, skewing the board for everyone else. When so asked, I have been willing to assign them what L12C2 says to give them. Somehow I think there are many directors who'd stare blankly at anyone who wanted to pass up a cold top, and walk away. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 12:05:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ157l06654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:05:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJ14vH06618 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:04:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-152-71.btinternet.com ([213.122.152.71] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16GV32-0004gk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:57:29 +0000 Message-ID: <00cd01c18827$fec7e5e0$fab101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:56:28 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon B wrote: > OK, I will don my fireproof suit, and attempt my simpleminded > interpretation of the laws. > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > > > Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, > > the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW > > revoke and lose their ace! What now? > > > > The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The > > revoke damage is one trick in the play. > > > > As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign > > as follows: > > > > OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) Well, perhaps. In general, the OS get the least favourable of the at-all-probable results they could have got had they not offended. However, should one take away the revoke? Of course, one could say that a priori the revoke was not at all probable, but there is an argument to the effect that since it actually happened, it was 100% certain! Still, 1460 will be just as much of a top for the OS as 2210 would have been, and we don't want them to have a top on this board. [snip] > > NOS: 7H= (table result stands) Quite so. The infraction has done nothing to damage the NOS - only they themselves have done that, and they deserve whatever happens to them. However... > > The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction > > but not the error. > > Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? > > Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that a player chose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ > > L73F sends you directly to L12. L16A2 tells the players what to do if they > suspect UI-in-general has been used, and in L16A2 we ask if an infraction > of law has resulted in damage. L73F doesn't do that; it says if someone > chooses an illegal alternative, do not pass go, do not collect $200. > > Now, L12C2: > > For a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had > the infraction not occured. Period. > > Leaving the contract at 7H for the NOS is not an option, no matter how > badly they defended at the table. ...this is indeed the way I believe the Laws as currently written mandate us to rule. That is, until we come to the splendid L12C3, which allows us to do whatever we like as long as we think it's fair. In jurisdictions where 12C3 is not enabled, there is no alternative but to rule as Gordon describes above. > Back to L12C2 now: > > For an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable. > > I read this to mean "..that was at all probable whether the infraction > happened or not," which effectively means "if you get a bad score as a > result of your infraction you keep it; if you gain from your infraction > you get the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had you not > perpetrated the infraction." > > In this case, I'd assign the OS 6H making 6. I wouldn't argue with anyone > who thinks 7H down 1 is the right ruling. I would. Had the infraction not occurred, 7H down 1 would be impossible. (Of course, I would argue that a side that bids a grand missing the ace of trumps has not committed an infraction at all - since what they did was something they would never have done had they possessed any information, it was not something that could have been based on any unauthorised information. But that is another matter altogether.) I'm not sure Ton would rule as I would - OS +1430, NOS -2210. He might suggest that (supposing the result at the other table to have been 1430), the infraction has done 13 IMPs' worth of damage to the NOS, and the revoke 1 IMP's worth, so the OS get a flat board and the NOS lose an IMP. I don't agree with that - I think that the infraction has actually given the NOS a 17 IMP advantage, and the revoke has cost them 30 IMPs. But they didn't revoke because of the infraction, so they keep what they scored. 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 Dec 19 12:36:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ1Zx511758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:35:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJ1ZnH11733 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:35:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-22-108.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.22.108] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16GVWt-000MnZ-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:28:19 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:28:23 -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: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Perhaps a slight modification will help to focus our discussion. > Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, > the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW > revoke and lose their ace! What now? > > The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The > revoke damage is one trick in the play. > > As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) > want to assign as follows: > > OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the > NOS error) > > Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error > but not the infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction > but not the error). Or I suppose you could let them keep > the table score. > +=+ I would like to assign in conformance with the WBFLC minute. (Section 2, 30th August 1998). The WBFLC ruling is that the OS are not to have the benefit of either the consequent or the subsequent damage. It seems to me that there is no consequential damage here, since the contract is one light without the revoke, but the revoke creates subsequent damage. (It is "related to", but not a consequence of, the infraction, if the minute means what I think it means.) For the OS that seems to suggest 7H-1. The NOS, said the WBFLC, are to receive redress for the consequential damage, but not for the subsequent damage. If the only damage is subsequent, that argues they keep the table score. ~ 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 Dec 19 13:09:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ28sQ17032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:08:54 +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 fBJ28iH17007 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:08:44 +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 NAA08598 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:11:38 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:01:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:57:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/12/2001 12:51:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: [big snip] >I can read L73F as telling me to take away a NOS's cold >top and instead give them a normal though good result on >a board. > >I have on occasion been told by (hyper?)actively ethical >NOS that they did not wish to have their random top forced >upon them, skewing the board for everyone else. When so >asked, I have been willing to assign them what L12C2 says >to give them. Somehow I think there are many directors >who'd stare blankly at anyone who wanted to pass up a cold >top, and walk away. > >GRB Jeff Rubens has also argued that the Laws should be interpreted/changed so that use of UI should always be illegal, rather than permitted when the OS get a bottom as a result. The Bower/Rubens thesis is reasonable in abstract. But in my humble opinion such a Law interpretation/change would have the practical effect of encouraging villains, since they would get fewer losing 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 Wed Dec 19 13:09:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ28lJ17014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:08:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJ28bH16992 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:08:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-72-178.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.72.178] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16GW2e-0002Kx-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:01:08 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c18831$3bc006e0$6c16e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200112182141.fBILfvH15825@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Noun or tautology? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:01:19 -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 Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Noun or tautology? > > At the time of the irregularity, you have not yet > become dummy and have the right to summon > the director. It is only when your partner has > selected one of the five options and establishes > you to be the dummy that you are actually the > dummy. > +=+ This statement conflicts with what it says in Law 54A ('dummy becomes declarer'). It also conflicts with the definition of 'Dummy' in Chapter 1 of the Laws. Declarer ceases to be 'presumed', and his partner becomes Dummy, when the opening lead is faced, including when the opening lead is out of turn. Law 54A gives 'declarer' the option to spread his hand etc. ~ 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 Dec 19 17:03:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ62Vf29431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:02:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJ62MH29415 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:02:22 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id BB0D4487A4; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:54:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:54:48 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was 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 1:46 AM +0000 12/18/01, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky writes >>Let me try to put it another way. The phrase "The most unfavorable >>result that was at all probable" is incomplete. It supposes >>something different to have happened than what actually happened. >>Since an infinite number of things could have happened but didn't, >>the clause requires a condition. What do you think that condition >>should be, and why do you think so? >I think it is complete. Suppose I were a committee member faced with making a 12C2 adjustment and you were a director instructing the committee as to the application of the laws. How would you explain the adjustment for the OS? -- 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 Wed Dec 19 18:27:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ7RQP14987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJ7RHH14959 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:27:18 +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 fBJ7Jo713569 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:19:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009a01c1885d$7ead30a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <00cd01c18827$fec7e5e0$fab101d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:13:59 -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: "David Burn" > But they didn't revoke because of the infraction, so they keep what they > scored. > If they didn't revoke because of the infraction, I don't see how the revoke can be removed from the play of the cards in figuring the score for an OS heart contract. The idea that the OS's adjusted score must not be a good result is not part of the Laws, however much TDs and ACs would like to believe that. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment, but as redress for damage caused by irregularities. Irregularities don't cause revokes. 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 Dec 19 18:59:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ7uo320913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:56:50 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBJ7ueH20882 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-65-195.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.65.195] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16GbQb-0006hF-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:46:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c18861$db5a0680$c341e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:49:58 -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: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) > > Suppose I were a committee member faced with > making a 12C2 adjustment and you were a director > instructing the committee as to the application of > the laws. How would you explain the adjustment > for the OS? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky +=+ In giving guidance to whomsoever I would note that what has happened in the legal auction prior to the infraction is certain; that variations can only occur from then on. I would say that since the player has selected the call that is the subject of the protest it is a probable action; that, as a matter of bridge judgement, other calls should be assessed for the probability of their selection and any that match to the criterion of 'at all probable' should also be taken into account - with continuations of the auction that are at all probable - when identifying the qualifier that leads to the most unfavourable result to the OS. If asked what is the standard for 'at all probable' I would quote the guidance provided by the regulating authority for the tournament (if none, the committee makes its own judgement of this). I agree with ton that a most unfavourable outcome that is reached via the protested call is a rarity, but when such a case is found it should not be disqualified. ~ 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 Dec 19 18:59:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ7vUZ21039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:57:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJ7vMH21022 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:57:22 +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 fBJ7nt723813 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:49:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:41:02 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > The WBFLC ruling is that the OS are not to have > the benefit of either the consequent or the subsequent > damage. It seems to me that there is no consequential > damage here, since the contract is one light without > the revoke, but the revoke creates subsequent damage. > (It is "related to", but not a consequence of, the infraction, > if the minute means what I think it means.) For the OS > that seems to suggest 7H-1. It's pretty sad when even the secretary of the LC isn't sure what an item in the minutes means. Can't these things be worded better? I had absolutely no idea what it meant when I first read it. It says "...advantage gained by the offender (see L72B1) provided it is related to the infraction...shall be construed as advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction." I can't see that a revoke is "related to the infraction." > The NOS, said the WBFLC, are to receive redress > for the consequential damage, but not for the subsequent > damage. If the only damage is subsequent, that argues > they keep the table score. Which 99.9% of us accept. Not only because it comes from the LC, but because it makes sense. And, by the way, those same minutes do not say anything about partial redress. Redress is either annulled or it is not. 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 Dec 19 19:36:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJ8ZoE28549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:35:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJ8ZeH28513 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:35:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBJ8S7u05780 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:28:07 +0100 Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBJ8FY203609; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:15:34 +0100 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BLML] Noun or tautology? To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:28:06 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/19/2001 09:28:06 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills asked among other questions: Question 1: As dummy, I may not call the TD until after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Is unauthorised cancellation of an irregularity drawing attention to it? and Grattan Endicott gave a general analysis to which I completely agree. In addition I would answer the above question that "drawing attention to an irregularity" includes whatever way the irregularity becomes "known" to the players at the table, so once the irregularity of the opening lead out of turn is apparent to all four players, for instance by declarer stating that he will accept it, it is not only the right, but even the responsibility for all four players (including dummy) that the director is summoned. (L9B1a and L9B1b) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 19 21:23:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJANOV19640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 21:23:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJANFH19615 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 21:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBJAFlB04823 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:15:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:15 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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: - Gordon Bower > Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that a player chose > from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ > > L73F sends you directly to L12. L16A2 tells the players what to do if > they suspect UI-in-general has been used, and in L16A2 we ask if an > infraction of law has resulted in damage. L73F doesn't do that; it says > if someone chooses an illegal alternative, do not pass go, do not > collect $200. >From the lawbook: F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, 1. Player .... As with L16A2 no damage, no adjustment. Result stands for both sides because the infraction didn't cause damage - WTP. If OS used hesitation Blackwood and should have known better give them a PP (whether you adjust or not). If NOS manage to revoke away the trump ace they deserve a bottom! Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 02:16:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJFFgU09811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJFFQH09761 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16GiK4-000EBK-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:13:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011218164908.00b8d650@127.0.0.1> <005201c1881d$d5b19a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005201c1881d$d5b19a20$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 >> Steve wrote: >> >> >Perhaps a slight modification will help to focus our discussion. >> >Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, >> >the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW >> >revoke and lose their ace! What now? >> > >> >The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The >> >revoke damage is one trick in the play. >> > >> >As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign >> >as follows: >> > >> >OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) >> > >> >Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the >> >infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or >> >I suppose you could let them keep the table score. >> > >> >NOS: 7H= (table result stands) >> > >> >The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction >> >but not the error. >> > >> >Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? >Assuming the revoke cannot be attributed to the irregularity, 7H= for the >NOS, who were not damaged by the infraction. They damaged themselves. The problem with this whole line of argument lies in this assertion which is patently [hehe!!] false. The thirteenth trick was the NOS's fault: the Grand Slam rather than the Small Slam was the result of the infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 02:16:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJFFgC09812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJFFQH09762 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:27 +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 16GiK4-000EBL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes > > >OK, I will don my fireproof suit, and attempt my simpleminded >interpretation of the laws. > >On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Suppose NS have used hesitation BW to bid 7H. Fortunately for justice, >> the offenders are off the ace of trumps. Unfortunately for the TD, EW >> revoke and lose their ace! What now? >> >> The effect of the infraction is that the contract is 7H, not 6H. The >> revoke damage is one trick in the play. >> >> As I understand it, Ton and David B. (and many others) want to assign >> as follows: >> >> OS: 6H= (take away both the illegal grand and the NOS error) >> Some alternatives might be 7H-1 (take away the error but not the >> infraction) and 6H+1 (take away the infraction but not the error). Or >> I suppose you could let them keep the table score. >> >> NOS: 7H= (table result stands) >> >> The only alternative seems to be 6H+1, taking away the infraction >> but not the error. >> Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? > >Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that a player chose from >among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been >suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the >like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ > >L73F sends you directly to L12. L16A2 tells the players what to do if they >suspect UI-in-general has been used, and in L16A2 we ask if an infraction >of law has resulted in damage. L73F doesn't do that; it says if someone >chooses an illegal alternative, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I think you need to re-read L73F. You seem to have ignored the first sentence, namely: 'When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent:' -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 02:16:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJFFnJ09828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJFFQH09764 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16GiK4-000EBM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:58 +0000 Message-ID: <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:30:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 1:46 AM +0000 12/18/01, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Adam Wildavsky writes >>>Let me try to put it another way. The phrase "The most unfavorable >>>result that was at all probable" is incomplete. It supposes >>>something different to have happened than what actually happened. >>>Since an infinite number of things could have happened but didn't, >>>the clause requires a condition. What do you think that condition >>>should be, and why do you think so? > >>I think it is complete. > >Suppose I were a committee member faced with making a 12C2 adjustment >and you were a director instructing the committee as to the >application of the laws. How would you explain the adjustment for the >OS? Of course, the question is whether you want me to be helpful or not. In general I would explain in a way that the AC believes the adjustment is if the irregularity had not occurred, since I tend to be a practical TD, only worrying about 0.5% occurrences when they actually happen. Ton has said he has never given such a ruling: few TDs would have given more than one such ruling in a year. When explaining something I tend to explain it quite widely. Such an explanation, if I really felt it needed to include this rare case, would no doubt include "and you can give an adjustment that goes via the irregularity, if this turns out to be 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 Thu Dec 20 03:22:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJGMCK11129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:22:12 +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 fBJGM4H11125 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:22:04 +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 LAA18368 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25680 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:14:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:14:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112191614.LAA25680@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > > I am not under any illusions that you will all accept > > waiting bids, Herbert negatives, and suchlike, as non-conventional. > > All definitely conventions. Actually, it isn't so clear. > I don't see that these relate to your main > argument. It is not their lack of information that makes them a > convention, but the fact that you are bidding a suit you don't have, or > one that partner isn't known to have. That last is what most of us would like to believe, but it isn't what the definition says. For example, a mandatory puppet completion is clearly _not_ a convention, just as the mandatory completion of a transfer. That includes a "waiting 2D" as long as it is made with all possible hands. (If rare hands bid something else, we are in the grey area, as Gordon said.) What about bids that show _only_ a range of strength: Precision 1C, Herbert, etc.? Of course we would like them to be conventions, but it isn't so clear that the definition makes them so. It specifically excludes agreements about overall strength from being conventions. And these bids don't "convey a meaning other than." Don't get me wrong: in practical cases, I'm happy to rule these bids to be conventions*, but here on BLML it's only fair to note that we are stretching the language to do so. ------ *This is probably influenced by David S. Readers can decide for themselves whether this is a good influence or a bad one. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 03:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJGOm411141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:24:48 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJGOeH11137 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:24:40 +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 RAA23368; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:14:00 +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 RAA22580; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:16:58 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011219171629.00ac51f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:18:49 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Is completion of a transfer a convention? [was: lots of things it ought not to have been] In-Reply-To: <008a01c187e6$9b035800$fab101d5@pbncomputer> References: <200112181245.MAA16676@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:08 18/12/2001 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Again, it is rather difficult to write unambiguous language. Would we >say that "South played in spades" if East was declarer in a contract of >4S? We would not. Thus, when South passes East's bid of 4S, South is not >expressing a willingness to play in the last denomination named - hence, >his pass is (strictly speaking) a convention. Of course, "we all know >what it means" - but then, we all know what a lot of things mean; the >trouble is that some of us know that they mean something different from >what the rest of us know that they mean. AG : the way out of this could be to rephrase "willingness to play in the last denomination named" with "wilingness that the contract be played in the last denomination named", and for a pass and a double respectively, "stating that the best one could do is to let the present contract become the end contract" and "stating that the present contract will go down". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 03:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJGRml11153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:27:48 +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 (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJGReH11149 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:27:41 +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 RAA22464; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:19:56 +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 RAA25055; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:20:02 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011219172056.00a2e820@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:21:53 +0100 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Re: fruit machine 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 15:00 18/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > It seems clear enough. When pass, double, or redouble show anything > beyond a willingness to play where the auction stands they are > conventional. South's pass of East's 4S is not conventional. Pass in a > D0P1 situation, weak nt-(X)-Pass as an escape sequence, fert 1-level > overcalls (*shudder*), 2C-(bananas)-Pass showing values, and other such > passes are conventional. AG : bananas ? Somebody once explained to me through blml what plums were. Is there a difference ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 03:55:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJGtHt11171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJGt9H11167 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:55:10 +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 IAA08877; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:47:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200112191647.IAA08877@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:21:53 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20011219172056.00a2e820@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:47:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:00 18/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > It seems clear enough. When pass, double, or redouble show anything > > beyond a willingness to play where the auction stands they are > > conventional. South's pass of East's 4S is not conventional. Pass in a > > D0P1 situation, weak nt-(X)-Pass as an escape sequence, fert 1-level > > overcalls (*shudder*), 2C-(bananas)-Pass showing values, and other such > > passes are conventional. > > AG : bananas ? Somebody once explained to me through blml what plums were. > Is there a difference ? My dictionary gives "crazy" as one of the definitions of "bananas". I suppose that was meant to describe the types of overcalls Todd's partner likes to make over 2C openers. -- 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 Dec 20 05:31:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJIUv825852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:30:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx01.nexgo.de (mx01.nexgo.de [151.189.8.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJIUlH25821 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:30:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-143-118.arcor-ip.net [212.144.143.118]) by mx01.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 414C53BC76 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:23:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <014901c188ba$ef4a40c0$768f90d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:26:59 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Gordon Bower" wrote: > Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that > a player chose from among logical alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by his > partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ Nope. David already pointed which part of L73 you missed. I will add a little bit of plain logic: The OS hesitation blackwood themselves into 6H, which goes down one. Do we adjust to 5H making, because this is the result if the irregularity had not occurred? Of course we do not. 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 Dec 20 06:10:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJJARB28678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:10:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f107.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJJAKH28674 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:10:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:02:48 -0800 Received: from 172.152.208.43 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:02:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.152.208.43] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: fruit machine Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:02:47 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2001 19:02:48.0060 (UTC) FILETIME=[BFC563C0:01C188BF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Alain Gottcheiner >At 15:00 18/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> It seems clear enough. When pass, double, or redouble show anything >>beyond a willingness to play where the auction stands they are >>conventional. South's pass of East's 4S is not conventional. Pass in a >>D0P1 situation, weak nt-(X)-Pass as an escape sequence, fert 1-level >>overcalls (*shudder*), 2C-(bananas)-Pass showing values, and other such >>passes are conventional. > >AG : bananas ? Somebody once explained to me through blml what plums were. >Is there a difference ? I don't know what they told you plums were, but I'd wager so. I think I'm guilty of using local jargon here, though. Locally we use fruits or animals -- apples, pears, bananas, and platypuses -- to note a bid, any bid, you don't really care which one and sometimes it's a call. So you can have an agreement like 1NT (weak)-apples-bananas-ducks-beavers-platypuses-Double is for penalties. -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 Dec 20 06:35:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJJZXL28696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:35:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJJZPH28692 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:35:25 +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 fBJJRvB16628 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:27:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002801c188c3$36a0e980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <014901c188ba$ef4a40c0$768f90d4@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:27:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Thomas Dehn" > > The OS hesitation blackwood themselves into > 6H, which goes down one. Do we adjust to > 5H making, because this is the result if the irregularity > had not occurred? Of course we do not. > Not pertinent, Thomas. No damage, and therefore no consequences for either side, no L12C2. There are those who might threaten, or impose, a PP for the infraction, even though Blackwood is not a "procedure." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 06:54:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJJsGE01875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:54:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJJs7H01854 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:54:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBJJkeB22185 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:46:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003a01c188c5$cf81a700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112191614.LAA25680@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:44:41 -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: "Steve Willner" > Marvin L. French wrote: >> Gordon Bower wrote: > > >I am not under any illusions that you will all accept > > > waiting bids, Herbert negatives, and suchlike, as non-conventional. > > > > All definitely conventions. > > Actually, it isn't so clear. > > > I don't see that these relate to your main > > argument. It is not their lack of information that makes them a > > convention, but the fact that you are bidding a suit you don't have, or > > one that partner isn't known to have. > > That last is what most of us would like to believe, but it isn't what > the definition says. For example, a mandatory puppet completion is > clearly _not_ a convention, just as the mandatory completion of a > transfer. That includes a "waiting 2D" as long as it is made with > all possible hands. (If rare hands bid something else, we are in the > grey area, as Gordon said.) > > What about bids that show _only_ a range of strength: Precision 1C, > Herbert, etc.? Of course we would like them to be conventions, but it > isn't so clear that the definition makes them so. It specifically > excludes agreements about overall strength from being conventions. And > these bids don't "convey a meaning other than." Don't get me wrong: > in practical cases, I'm happy to rule these bids to be conventions*, but > here on BLML it's only fair to note that we are stretching the language > to do so. > If a bid doesn't show a willingness to play in the denomination named, or three-card length, or strength there, it's a convention. That's the way us common folk read the definition in the Laws, and I'm pretty sure that is what was intended. If not, then the writer didn't know, as most everyone knows, what constitutes a convention. It's about time for someone to come up with a better definition. It isn't easy. I know a convention when I see one, but I don't know how to define one. I thought the 1987 Laws' definition was better. However, it said (in effect) that if a bid shows shortness in the denomination named (e.g., a splinter bid), then it's not a convention. Since the only real purpose of "convention" in the Laws is to define what an SO can control, I'd rather do away with the word. If a bid says something specific about the denomination named, whatever it says, and nothing specific about another denomination, then it should not be subject to SO control. 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 Dec 20 07:15:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJKEeF05501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:14:40 +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 fBJKEWH05487 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:14:32 +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 PAA29985 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26083 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:07:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112192007.PAA26083@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > If a bid doesn't show a willingness to play in the denomination named, or > three-card length, or strength there, it's a convention. If you look carefully at the definition, you will see it isn't so. The question is whether the bid (call, really) "conveys a meaning other than" one of the above. There is no requirement that it convey one of the above meanings. > That's the way us > common folk read the definition in the Laws, and I'm pretty sure that is > what was intended. Quite likely true. Your statement -- and not the written definition -- may be the practical definition. > If not, then the writer didn't know, as most everyone > knows, what constitutes a convention. Heh. > It's about time for someone to come up with a better definition. It isn't > easy. I know a convention when I see one, but I don't know how to define > one. Heh. We have tried before on BLML. It is really, really hard! > I thought the 1987 Laws' definition was better. However, it said (in > effect) that if a bid shows shortness in the denomination named (e.g., a > splinter bid), then it's not a convention. The 1987 definition was unclear, but one reasonable interpretation makes shortness-showing bids conventions. (The key is to read "necessarily related" as a single phrase, i.e. that 'necessarily' is an adverb modifying 'related'. That is quite a natural reading but not the only reading possible.) The problem is that reading the definition this way makes Flannery 2H (showing four spades and longer hearts) NOT a convention. I could live with that, but most people dislike it. > Since the only real purpose of "convention" in the Laws is to define what > an SO can control, I'd rather do away with the word. If a bid says > something specific about the denomination named, whatever it says, and > nothing specific about another denomination, then it should not be subject > to SO control. I think it's reasonable for SO's to regulate shortness-showing calls. The definition of 'convention' figures in L27 as well as 40D. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 08:49:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJLmWE23958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:48:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBJLmNH23937 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:48:24 +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 QAA04657 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:40:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26283 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:40:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:40:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112192140.QAA26283@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Does anyone want to argue for one of the alternatives? Not too surprisingly, there were a variety of cogent arguments for some of the alternatives. I remember we have discussed these issues before and never quite come to a consensus. Personally, I am more worried by the failure to agree than by which of the various alternatives is correct. Perhaps the CoP process and the "approved jurisprudence" will eventually give guidance, but it would be nice if the future laws could spell out exactly what to do. If this is to be done, I strongly suggest that simpler rules are better, even if they are arguably less fair than more complex rules. It should be possible to explain to players exactly why a given result was assigned, at least in cases where there aren't complex bridge judgments to be made. Jeff Rubens has suggested one possible principle: after an irregularity merits adjustment, all further play is to be disregarded. I'm not sure this is best -- in my example, it lets the revokers off the hook -- but at least it's clear and unambiguous. A different principle might be, "Give the same score to both sides." (This could have a minor exception when there are many possible outcomes, and we give an ordinary split score.) In my example, the UI didn't cause damage because the NOS expectation after the UI infraction was greater than before the UI infraction. Letting the UI-users off the hook seems undesirable on its face, but maybe doing so would force TD's and AC's to adopt an appropriately strict standard for "egregious error" or IWorG or whatever. Anyway, could we please have some clear guidelines? And please don't make them more complex than absolutely necessary. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 08:58:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJLwJI25417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:58:19 +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-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 fBJLw8H25387 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:58:11 +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 fBJLobT10502 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:50:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011219165019.00ac7100@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, 19 Dec 2001 16:53:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine 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 02:02 PM 12/19/01, Todd wrote: > I don't know what they told you plums were, but I'd wager so. I > think I'm guilty of using local jargon here, though. Locally we use > fruits or animals -- apples, pears, bananas, and platypuses -- to > note a bid, any bid, you don't really care which one and sometimes > it's a call. So you can have an agreement like 1NT > (weak)-apples-bananas-ducks-beavers-platypuses-Double is for penalties. Around here, the plums, bananas etc. are used to represent suits rather than bids. Discussions are about the difference between, say, one grape - one banana auctions and one grape - two plums auctions. Thus the auction above would be impossible in our local jargon -- it would suggest five different suits bid. 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 Dec 20 10:25:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJNPIm11547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:25:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJNPAH11529 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:25:10 +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 fBJNHgB26837 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:17:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005a01c188e2$e1488fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112192007.PAA26083@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:05:06 -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" > > The 1987 definition was unclear, but one reasonable interpretation > makes shortness-showing bids conventions. (The key is to read > "necessarily related" as a single phrase, i.e. that 'necessarily' is an > adverb modifying 'related'. That is quite a natural reading but not > the only reading possible.) The problem is that reading the definition > this way makes Flannery 2H (showing four spades and longer hearts) NOT > a convention. I could live with that, but most people dislike it. > Most people that I have consulted, from English professors to bridge players, don't read it that way. The 1987 definition: A convention "is a call...not necessarily related to the denomination named" is interpreted by the majority of them as meaning that a call must necessarily be related only to the denomination named, not to any other denomination, or it is a convention. When an interpretation of the Laws' words, while not irrational, leads to a *reductio ad absurdum* (e.g., Flannery is not a convention), I think it's safe to assume that the interpretation is not what the lawmakers had in mind, so pick another. The fact that the alternative interpretation says a bid showing shortness is not a convention seems quite reasonable to me. Whether a bid promises 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0 length in the suit named shouldn't matter if the agreement is disclosed. Note the ACBL's progress in that direction, with it's new "Could be short" Announcement for a 1C/1D opening that might be based on fewer than three cards. Like a takeout double that implies shortness in the suit doubled, these bids are no longer going to be treated like conventions, whatever the definition says. 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 Dec 20 10:31:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBJNV6O12621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:31:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBJNUwH12599 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:30:58 +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 16Gq3S-000Fhg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:23:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:56:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112192140.QAA26283@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200112192140.QAA26283@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 >A different principle might be, "Give the same score to both sides." >(This could have a minor exception when there are many possible >outcomes, and we give an ordinary split score.) In my example, the UI >didn't cause damage because the NOS expectation after the UI infraction >was greater than before the UI infraction. Letting the UI-users off >the hook seems undesirable on its face, but maybe doing so would force >TD's and AC's to adopt an appropriately strict standard for "egregious >error" or IWorG or whatever. While I do not agree with the same score for both sides because there are several exceptions, such as L82C, I do think that L12C2 would be better with the same standard of adjustment applied to both sides. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 11:20:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK0KZK20811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:20:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBK0KRH20798 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:20:27 +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 TAA23380 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA26491 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:12:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:12:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112200012.TAA26491@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Most people that I have consulted, from English professors to bridge > players, don't read it that way. No doubt. I said that other readings are possible. > When an interpretation of the Laws' words, while not irrational, leads to > a *reductio ad absurdum* (e.g., Flannery is not a convention), I would have said that "splinter is not a convention" is a better example of *reductio ad absurdum*. All this proves is that reasonable people can disagree. > Note the ACBL's progress in that direction, with > it's new "Could be short" Announcement I don't think the rules for alerts/announcements can be used as an argument for whether something is a convention or not. Mostly what they prove is how rare or common some method is. Let me put this question: if a SO wanted -- in a special game where "few conventions" are to be allowed -- to prohibit bidding a suit to show shortness in it, would you say the regulation is unreasonable? (I'm not asking whether you personally would care to play in such a game!) I wouldn't. In contrast, if they were to prohibit bidding a suit to show length in it, that would be ridiculous. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 11:34:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK0XnN21294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:33:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBK0XeH21290 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-75-169-227.dc.rr.com [66.75.169.227]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBK0P1h24026 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:25:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c188ed$1aa915c0$6401a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Rainbow Bridge Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:27:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C188AA.0C08B680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C188AA.0C08B680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is with considerable sadness that I have to report the loss of our = Sabrina, a 16 year old Burmese, who for so many years has ruled our = house with a firm but loving paw. Nobody could believe she was 16 until = about four months ago, when it turned out she was experiencing kidney = failure. We tried to keep her going for as long as it seemed she wasn't = suffering, but finally the truth was apparent. As a consequence, I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find a Burmese = kitten to give to my wife as a Christmas present. If anyone knows of = such a kitten that is anywhere close to Southern California, I would be = very grateful for their help. I know it's late in the day for = Christmas, but my sources have dried up. I am quite willing to consider = driving a fair distance to pick it up, and I suppose it might be flown = here, but I would much prefer to meet the kitten before the purchase, to = find out if I am an acceptable owner. Thanks for any help you can provide. Irv Kostal ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C188AA.0C08B680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is with considerable sadness that I = have to=20 report the loss of our Sabrina, a 16 year old Burmese, who for so many = years has=20 ruled our house with a firm but loving paw.  Nobody could believe = she was=20 16 until about four months ago, when it turned out she was experiencing = kidney=20 failure.  We tried to keep her going for as long as it seemed she = wasn't=20 suffering, but finally the truth was apparent.
 
As a consequence, I am trying, = unsuccessfully so=20 far, to find a Burmese kitten to give to my wife as a Christmas = present. =20 If anyone knows of such a kitten that is anywhere close to Southern = California,=20 I would be very grateful for their help.  I know it's late in the = day for=20 Christmas, but my sources have dried up.  I am quite willing to = consider=20 driving a fair distance to pick it up, and I suppose it might be flown = here, but=20 I would much prefer to meet the kitten before the purchase, to find out = if I am=20 an acceptable owner.
 
Thanks for any help you can=20 provide.
 
Irv Kostal
 
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C188AA.0C08B680-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 11:50:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK0o9c21316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:50:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBK0o1H21312 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:50:01 +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 fBK0gQq28483; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:42:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:34:10 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002801c188c3$36a0e980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20011219194230-R01010800-2bb65826-0904-0109@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 12/19/01 at 11:27 AM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > There are those who might threaten, or impose, a PP for the infraction, > even though Blackwood is not a "procedure." No, but bidding in tempo is. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 12:51:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK1p4526247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:51:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBK1otH26224 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:50:55 +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 16GsF0-0002Db-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:41:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Rainbow Bridge References: <000c01c188ed$1aa915c0$6401a8c0@irv> In-Reply-To: <000c01c188ed$1aa915c0$6401a8c0@irv> 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 fBK1ovH26228 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000c01c188ed$1aa915c0$6401a8c0@irv>, Irv Kostal writes > It is with considerable sadness that I have to report the loss of > our Sabrina, a 16 year old Burmese, who for so many years has ruled > our house with a firm but loving paw.  Nobody could believe she was > 16 until about four months ago, when it turned out she was > experiencing kidney failure.  We tried to keep her going for as > long as it seemed she wasn't suffering, but finally the truth was > apparent. >   > As a consequence, I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find a > Burmese kitten to give to my wife as a Christmas present.  If > anyone knows of such a kitten that is anywhere close to Southern > California, I would be very grateful for their help.  I know it's > late in the day for Christmas, but my sources have dried up.  I am > quite willing to consider driving a fair distance to pick it up, > and I suppose it might be flown here, but I would much prefer to > meet the kitten before the purchase, to find out if I am an > acceptable owner. >   > Thanks for any help you can provide. We are very sorry to hear this, and David has asked on his favourite Cat newsgroup whether anyone can help. Mrow *QU* *NP* -- 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 Dec 20 14:59:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK3wIk21367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:58:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBK3w9H21343 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:58:10 +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 fBK3of725412 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:50:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001401c18909$775d51c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011219194230-R01010800-2bb65826-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:49:04 -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: > > > There are those who might threaten, or impose, a PP for the infraction, > > even though Blackwood is not a "procedure." > > No, but bidding in tempo is. > Yeah, yeah, everything is a procedure. Give PPs for revokes, especially those that do no harm? Or for LOOTs, BOOTs, etc.? Why not, if they're all procedures? I prefer to think that Procedural Penalties were intended for offenses typified by L90B. If not, how come 50 years passed before they were assessed for anything else? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 18:39:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK7ckD07308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:38:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBK7caH07274 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:38:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-225-50-47.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com ([80.225.50.47] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Gxcb-000P8g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:28:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:31:42 -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: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > It's pretty sad when even the secretary of the LC isn't > sure what an item in the minutes means. Can't these > things be worded better? I had absolutely no idea > what it meant when I first read it. > +=+ I must stop this assumption of false diffidence. I wrote what the committee wished the minute to say. Having heard the discussion I was in no doubt as to my colleagues' intentions. The damage occurs in the aftermath of the infraction and is not down to irrational, wild or gambling action by the NOS, nor a good result obtained solely by the skilled play of the OS, so it is related to the infraction (but not caused by it). +=+ > > I can't see that a revoke is "related to the infraction." > +=+ See above. +=+ > . > > The NOS, said the WBFLC, are to receive redress > > for the consequential damage, but not for the subsequent > > damage. If the only damage is subsequent, that argues > > they keep the table score. > > Which 99.9% of us accept. Not only because it comes > from the LC, but because it makes sense. And, by the > way, those same minutes do not say anything about > partial redress. Redress is either annulled or it is not. > +=+ But they say there should be redress to the NOS for such part of the damage as is consequent upon the irregularity but not for such part as is 'subsequent'. ~ 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 Dec 20 19:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBK8QV016434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:26:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBK8QLH16399 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:26:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id fBK8IoR03785 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:18:50 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Dec 20 09:16:04 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 <01KC33X8K7KY002XC7@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:18:49 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:18:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:18:48 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage To: "'Gordon Bower'" Cc: 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 Gordon: > Okay, here I go: L73F: If the Director determines that a > player chose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably > have been > suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, he _shall award an adjusted score._ > > L73F sends you directly to L12. L16A2 tells the players what > to do if they > suspect UI-in-general has been used, and in L16A2 we ask if > an infraction > of law has resulted in damage. L73F doesn't do that; it says > if someone > chooses an illegal alternative, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I am not going to try to understand why you need this for, since what you say here seems wrong to me. Or better, it is right on the square foot but not on the law field. As I have tried to say before: laws do not stand on their own and parts of laws do even less. The first sentence of L73F asks for damage to apply F1 as well as F2. And the different references to 16 and 12 simply can be explained by the fact that F1 deals with UI (L16) and F2 doesn't. I have the stronfg feeling that trying to find any distinction in teatment based on the wording in 73 is wrong. 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 Dec 20 22:21:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKBKd819879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:20:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f36.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBKBKUH19856 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:20:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:12:56 -0800 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:12:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: kneebee@hotmail.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:12:55 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2001 11:12:56.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[467FF9C0:01C18947] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My opponents once bid one mashed, two boiled, four chipped. I was a bit slow that day and had to ask for a translation. >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: [BLML] Re: fruit machine >Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:02:47 -0800 > >>From: Alain Gottcheiner >>At 15:00 18/12/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>> It seems clear enough. When pass, double, or redouble show anything >>>beyond a willingness to play where the auction stands they are >>>conventional. South's pass of East's 4S is not conventional. Pass in a >>>D0P1 situation, weak nt-(X)-Pass as an escape sequence, fert 1-level >>>overcalls (*shudder*), 2C-(bananas)-Pass showing values, and other such >>>passes are conventional. >> >>AG : bananas ? Somebody once explained to me through blml what plums were. >>Is there a difference ? > > I don't know what they told you plums were, but I'd wager so. I think >I'm guilty of using local jargon here, though. Locally we use fruits or >animals -- apples, pears, bananas, and platypuses -- to note a bid, any >bid, >you don't really care which one and sometimes it's a call. So you can have >an agreement like 1NT (weak)-apples-bananas-ducks-beavers-platypuses-Double >is for penalties. > >-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/ _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 20 22:23:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKBNO220437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:23:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBKBNEH20399 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:23:15 +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 MAA15375; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:15:29 +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 MAA00404; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:15:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011220121120.00a94c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:17:29 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011219165019.00ac7100@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:53 19/12/2001 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:02 PM 12/19/01, Todd wrote: > >> I don't know what they told you plums were, but I'd wager so. I >> think I'm guilty of using local jargon here, though. Locally we use >> fruits or animals -- apples, pears, bananas, and platypuses -- to note a >> bid, any bid, you don't really care which one and sometimes it's a >> call. So you can have an agreement like 1NT >> (weak)-apples-bananas-ducks-beavers-platypuses-Double is for penalties. > >Around here, the plums, bananas etc. are used to represent suits rather >than bids. Discussions are about the difference between, say, one grape - >one banana auctions and one grape - two plums auctions. Thus the auction >above would be impossible in our local jargon -- it would suggest five >different suits bid. AG : thank you for your answers. Well, one of those animals may represent NT, I guess. We mathematicians are so prosaic ! I use to write eg 1x 1y 3y weaker than 1x 1y 2y and everybody understands, but it's definitely more fun to bid : 1 ox 1 chicken 3 chickens (or any other, more exotic, beast) BTW, this convention doesn't solve everything (does any bridge convention ?) : it might be important to differentiate between bids at the same level ; for example, I don't play the same system after 1x (2y) according to whether the 2y bid is a jump or not. Perhaps we might use kangaroos, frogs and mexican beans when the bid is a jump ? Thus it becomes : 1 beaver (2 moles) 2NT = beaver raise 1 beaver (2 kangaroos) 2NT = transfer to clubs [of course, moles are *under* other beasts] 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 Dec 21 00:48:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKDmQg13180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:48:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBKDmGH13152 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:48:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-22-185.btinternet.com ([213.122.22.185] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16H3RF-00028q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:40:45 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c1895b$cda11600$956c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011218164908.00b8d650@127.0.0.1> <005201c1881d$d5b19a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:39:47 -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 DWS wrote: > >Assuming the revoke cannot be attributed to the irregularity, 7H= for the > >NOS, who were not damaged by the infraction. They damaged themselves. > > The problem with this whole line of argument lies in this assertion > which is patently [hehe!!] false. > > The thirteenth trick was the NOS's fault: the Grand Slam rather than > the Small Slam was the result of the infraction. Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any damage. I don't think the above assertion is false - I think it's correct in every particular. 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 Dec 21 02:09:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKF94G29580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:09:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBKF8uH29553 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:08:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id fBKF1Pg11409 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA02636; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:01:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:01:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200112201501.KAA02636@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > I don't know what they told you plums were, but I'd wager so. I think >I'm guilty of using local jargon here, though. Locally we use fruits or >animals -- apples, pears, bananas, and platypuses -- to note a bid, any bid, >you don't really care which one and sometimes it's a call. So you can have >an agreement like 1NT (weak)-apples-bananas-ducks-beavers-platypuses-Double >is for penalties. > >-Todd I was under the impression that you could only beaver over an opponent's obviously poor double, not over ducks (unless ducks means a bad double? please clarify!). Tony the Canuck ps. there is a family of beavers less than 300 metres from my house; also raccoons, skunks, some deer, a probable lynx and a (small) pack of cayotes (well, maybe dogs) and assorted rodents from small mice to rats the size of cats. There are also hawks, ducks, geese, an eagle, owls, and at least one wild turkey. All this in the city of Ottawa, and not in a zoo! pps where could we get a platypus, and do they like the cold? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 02:42:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKFffG06077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:41:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBKFfWH06047 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:41:33 +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 fBKFY0q02972 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:34:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:25:24 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003d01c1895b$cda11600$956c7ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@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 12/20/01 at 1:39 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any damage. Um, the score for 6H+1 is less than the score for 7H=. Seems to me that constitutes "damage" to the defenders, unless nobody else bid any slam. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 03:20:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKGJlt12696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:19:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBKGJcH12668 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:19:38 +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 RAA18234; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:09:04 +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 RAA12754; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:11:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011220171148.00ac7a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:13:52 +0100 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine In-Reply-To: <200112201501.KAA02636@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:01 20/12/2001 -0500, A. L. Edwards wrote: > > > >-Todd >I was under the impression that you could only beaver over an >opponent's obviously poor double, not over ducks (unless ducks >means a bad double? please clarify!). AG : this could hardly qualify as a clarification, but I suppose you could have to duck something when beavering away at an intricated squeeze. If you don't, your goose is cooked. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 04:34:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKHXiE25994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 04:33:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBKHXYH25967 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 04:33:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBKHQ3P21891 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:26:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: fruit machine 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: <200112201501.KAA02636@freenet10.carleton.ca> Tony wrote: > I was under the impression that you could only beaver over an > opponent's obviously poor double, Surely one can beaver over any double, poor or obvious, although the latter may not be wise (if this makes no sense then play more backgammon). 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 Dec 21 08:07:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBKL6Io19135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:06:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBKL69H19131 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:06:10 +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 IAA28090 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:09:01 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:58:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Simplicity or Equity? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:55:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/12/2001 07:49:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *calculation of damage*, Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >it would be nice if the future laws could spell >out exactly what to do. > >If this is to be done, I strongly suggest that >simpler rules are better, even if they are >arguably less fair than more complex rules. It >should be possible to explain to players exactly >why a given result was assigned, at least in cases >where there aren't complex bridge.judgments to be >made. [snip] I believe that asking *Simplicity or Equity*? is begging the question. If the 2007 Laws are functionally organised, easy to interpret and therefore uniformly applied (and if, therefore, post-2007 blml disbands due to lack of ambiguity to pontificate on) - then Simplicity will proportionately increase Equity. Let us look at a hypothetical case. Suppose that the 2007 Laws are simplified by abolishing ACs. Individuals might get a specific inequitable ruling, but the field in an event would get, as a whole, consistency - and therefore equity - in rulings. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 12:16:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL1FPx02268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:15:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBL1FEH02238 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:15:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011221010743.CCVC3628.femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:07:43 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011220200048.0086f160@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, 20 Dec 2001 20:00:48 -0500 To: Robin Barker , gordonrainsford@btinternet.com From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200112181245.MAA16676@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:45 PM 12/18/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: >A pass, double, or redouble does not name a denomination, so the >phrase "(or in the last denomination named)" indicates that the >conventionality of a pass, double or redouble relates to the >willingness to play in the denomination of the last bid (as it can >not relate to the denomination named in the call itself). > >I guess that a pass before the opening bid is not conventional if >it shows willingness to pass out the board [pass the board out]. The ACBL published an interpreation of the 1987 Laws along these lines. A player playing a Forcing Pass system who made an opening pass out of turn would be treated as if he had made an opening bid out of turn. This could only apply in a world event, as the ACBL does not allow conventional passes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 14:21:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL3KhP16439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:20:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBL3KYH16435 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:20:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-139-33.btinternet.com ([213.122.139.33] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16H6YR-0003uF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:00:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:56:39 -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 Ed wrote: > > Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any damage. > > Um, the score for 6H+1 is less than the score for 7H=. Seems to me that > constitutes "damage" to the defenders, unless nobody else bid any slam. This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the damage the result of it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 16:20:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL5JOT00472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:19:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBL5JFH00440 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:19:15 +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 fBL5BYq03477; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:11:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:09:03 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage To: David Burn cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-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 12/20/01 at 4:56 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that > was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H > and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the > damage the result of it. So an error by the NOS wipes out the infraction? I don't think I like that much. :-) Absent the revoke, iirc, the result is 6H making 6. OS got to 7H, and yes, it should go down one. But they should not have been there, and they got there through an infraction. I do not see why the revoke should negate all that. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 16:28:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL5Scc02358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:28:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBL5STH02326 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:28:29 +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 fBL5Krq08612; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:20:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:18:04 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage To: "David J. Grabiner" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011220200048.0086f160@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Message-ID: <20011221002100-R01010800-1ea57150-0904-0109@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 12/20/01 at 8:00 PM, grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) wrote: > This could > only apply in a world event, as the ACBL does not allow conventional passes. Um, the ABCL does not allow *Forcing Pass Systems*. I note that the GCC, at least, does not seem to define what those are. But if they are those systems in which a hand with opening values would pass, that precludes an *opening* conventional pass. But a pass later in the auction is not the same thing. Or is it the case that if the logic of the auction indicates that pass should not (or cannot) indicate a willingness to play in the last denomination named, it is both forcing and natural? (E.g.: 2C-(P)-2D-(2S)-P). 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 17:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL65Mv09374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:05:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBL65EH09370 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:05:14 +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 fBL5vh722151 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:57:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00da01c189e3$df0ae820$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:51:38 -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: "David Burn" > Ed wrote: > > > > Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any > damage. > > > > Um, the score for 6H+1 is less than the score for 7H=. Seems to me > that > > constitutes "damage" to the defenders, unless nobody else bid any > slam. > > This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that > was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H > and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the > damage the result of it. > Edgar Kaplan once tried to explain the "consequent-subsequent" principle with this example: ######## EW went to the wrong table; instead of going to table 13 in Section K where they belonged, they went to 13 in Section J. By the time the proper E-W pair came to the table, the bidding was over and dummy exposed; the director properly ordered that play continue. Afterwards N-S protested: "We were completely innocent (we even asked E-W their pair number and got the right answer). Why should we get a bottom because of the E-W infraction? The E-W that we were supposed to face don't use "Brozell," and admit that they would have let us play one notrump. Had it not been for the irregularity, we would have been -100 like everyone else." Now, most directors would penalize the wandering E-W pair for their infraction, but no director in the world would give the luckless N-S anything except heart-felt sympathy. They were damaged after the infraction, but not by it - the damage was "subsequent," not "consequent!" Their claim - that had it not been for the infraction they would have been better off - is entirely true, and quite irrelevant. Just about any subsequent event is, to some degree, consequent as well. If Napoleon had won the battle of Waterloo, the ripples of change would have spread so far that "Brozell" would never have been invented - I have no doubt of that whatever. So, if Blücher had not been allowed to join Wellington, or if the E-W pair from K had not wandered into J, NS wouldn't have suffered their zero. But I am no more inclined to award redress to NS for EW's infraction than for Marechal Crouchy's - in neither case was the damage (-110 for N/S) a direct and natural consequence of the infraction. ####### As an aside: I got this through Google after searching on "subsequent consequent damage." This great search engine even brought up an appeals case from the San Antonio NABC casebook. It was in the "members only" section of the ACBL website, to which Google evidently has access. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25-1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 17:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL6VhX09392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:31:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBL6VYH09388 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:31:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-51-153.btinternet.com ([213.122.51.153] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16HJ68-0001fi-00; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 06:24:01 +0000 Message-ID: <00cf01c189e7$f49460a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 06:23:02 -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 Ed wrote: > So an error by the NOS wipes out the infraction? I don't think I like that much. > :-) It does not "wipe out the infraction". It has nothing to do with the infraction. It is an error that, had they made it against any heart contract on defense (as you Americans put it because you correctly cannot bring yourselves to speak English) would have led to a poor score for their side whether the contract was 6H or 7H. > Absent the revoke, iirc, the result is 6H making 6. OS got to 7H, and yes, it > should go down one. But they should not have been there, and they got there > through an infraction. I do not see why the revoke should negate all that. I said something a long time ago about preaching to the unconvertible. Gordon Rainsford, whose first time it was around this wearisome loop, urged me to continue. But there comes a point at which... 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 Dec 21 17:46:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL6kL309409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:46:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBL6kDH09405 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:46:14 +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 fBL6cg703434 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:38:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00ee01c189e9$7fae5000$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221002100-R01010800-1ea57150-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incalculable damage, was Re: calculation of damage Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:26:44 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" > David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > This could > > only apply in a world event, as the ACBL does not allow conventional passes. > > Um, the ABCL does not allow *Forcing Pass Systems*. I note that the GCC, at > least, does not seem to define what those are. But if they are those systems in > which a hand with opening values would pass, that precludes an *opening* > conventional pass. But a pass later in the auction is not the same thing. Or is > it the case that if the logic of the auction indicates that pass should not (or > cannot) indicate a willingness to play in the last denomination named, it is > both forcing and natural? (E.g.: 2C-(P)-2D-(2S)-P). > Yes, it is the case. Whenever it would be unthinkable for the auction to die, a forcing pass is merely a treatment, not a convention. A pass is a convention if, by partnership agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Trivia question: Where is this statement in the Laws? And does it really belong there? 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 Dec 21 20:11:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBL99ha09473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:09:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx01.nexgo.de (mx01.nexgo.de [151.189.8.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBL99YH09469 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:09:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-144-032.arcor-ip.net [212.144.144.32]) by mx01.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 237993BCA4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:02:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002c01c189fe$de751c80$eb9590d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> <00da01c189e3$df0ae820$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:06:44 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits 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: > Edgar Kaplan once tried to explain the "consequent-subsequent" principle > with this example: > > ######## > EW went to the wrong table; instead of going to table 13 in Section K > where they belonged, they went to 13 in Section J. By the time the proper > E-W pair came to the table, the bidding was over and dummy exposed; the > director properly ordered that play continue. Afterwards N-S protested: > "We were completely innocent (we even asked E-W their pair number and got > the right answer). Why should we get a bottom because of the E-W > infraction? The E-W that we were supposed to face don't use "Brozell," and > admit that they would have let us play one notrump. Had it not been for > the irregularity, we would have been -100 like everyone else." I suggest the following example. N/S hesitation blackwood themselves into 6H, making. The TD is called, and the score is adjusted to 5H making six. Three weeks later, E/W and N/S meat again at a different tournament. The bidding goes: N S 2H 4NT 5D(1) 5H(2) 6H(3) (1) one or four aces (2) no hesitation this time (3) N has four aces. E, who still remembers that hand from three weeks ago, loses concentration, and revokes, enabling N/S to make an unmakeable 6H. E calls the TD and claims that he was damaged because of the hesitation blackwood three weeks earlier. 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 Dec 21 21:00:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLA0Ji09506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:00:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (rd-ir.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBLA0BH09501 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:00:12 +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 KAA17175; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:52:22 +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 KAA29188; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:52:29 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:54:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] sharp ? Cc: pitchoubis@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Always wary about possible sharp practice, I'm still in doubt about the case of the "frustrating line of play". Here is one case, from a Belgian T4 match : A10xx KQx QJxx A 9x AK10x Qxx AKJxx Playing in 6NT, you've got an obvious line for 12 tricks : win whatever is the lead, check the clubs, unblock HA, go to dummy with QC, play HQ, and claim when she's covered. A good deal for an elementary course. But this particular East got a Diamond lead, to the Queen and Ace. He then decided, after checking the Clubs, to play his small Diamond to the nine, in effect ensuring his twelfth trick. You could always argue that if South doesn't take his DJ, you have now good chances for a 13th trick, but this is true of HK too. Thus the two lines are equal. Now, why would East choose the Diamond line ? Perhaps because he can claim earlier in the play. Perhaps, too, because of the "frustration factor". On seeing how declarer endeavoured to make 12 tricks, South (a good player but poor analyst) thought he had given the contract on the lead, and took a full hour to recover. Also, he raved about those players who weren't able to get at the far superior 6C. Well, perhaps they should have found _seven_ clubs, but East firmly believes that "great slams should not be played under the 110% mark", and he was right once more, since there is a choice of lines in 7C, one of which is failing, while at the other table, a trash weak 2 by North got E/W all the way to 4S. Now, assume East deliberately played on diamonds with the intent of giving South nightmares about his lead. Can he be declared guilty of sharp practice ? L74B4 is not the one to apply : whenever this East plays a contract, minutes are saved. Neither is L73D2, because East didn't pip, wave or gesture in any way. L74A2, then ? Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? Thank you for your comments. Best regards. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 21:42:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLAgTb09531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:42:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from atlas.e-sat.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBLAf8H09527 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:41:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from ANAX ([192.168.86.20]) by atlas.e-sat.gr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id ZKMV0D2X; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:34:25 +0200 Message-ID: <001101c18a0a$c96bdd40$1456a8c0@Anax> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] I need a psyche-iatrist Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:32:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLers, I'm encountering some difficulties with a regulation of the Hellenic Bridge Federation about psychic calls: "3.22 Psychic calls 1. A psychic call of one of a suit in first, second or fourth seat is the bid where the addition of the two longest suits plus the number of HCP is less than 18 (rule of 18). A psychic call of 1NT in any seat is the opening where there are less than 10 HCP and a balanced distribution. Psychic bids are acceptable according to LAW 40 and if of course from the sequence of the bidding it is proved that even the bidder's partner could have been misled. The use of psychic call where the partner of the player who psyched avoided a normal call should be reported to the director, which in turn should inform the organizer. 2. Psychic bids in artificial forcing sequences are strictly forbidden and are considered gravest moral offence. 3. The organizers in local club tournaments may forbid psychic bids in first, second or forth seat. In case of violation and if the director is called before the end of round, if the non-offending side hasn't been damaged, the score stands and if the non-offending side has been damaged the director shall award an artificial score 60% of the top for the non-offending side and 20% for the offending side." It seems to me that this rule contradicts with Laws 12 (Director's discretionary powers), 40A (Partnership understandings) and 75B (Violations of partnership agreements). Your opinion would be very much helpful and appreciated. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 22:55:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLBsXr16625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:54:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBLBsJH16599 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:54:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBLBkkU16385 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:46:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:46 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain asked, > Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? I think so. I know some players who really *hate* being squeezed and I consider it "good bridge" to attempt to squeeze these players rather than take an alternative (same percentage) line. I want my opponents to be frustrated on the following hands. However, I would consider it sharp if, after the squeeze, I turned to my opponent and said sympathetically "Never mind, I always find it difficult knowing what to keep." IMO it's OK to give an opponent a chance to make a mistake instead of playing for a genuine position - particularly when the mistake will damage partnership harmony. It becomes sharp if you point out the mistake afterwards. It's OK to make a palooka type mistake (foregoing an overtrick) early in a team match in the hope oppos will underestimate you later. It's sharp if you pretend not to understand the mistake you made. In summary then, *anything* I can do to annoy/frustrate/deceive my opponents based purely on my choice of line is normal competitive practice. Obviously if you are playing pairs/cut-in the timing of such strategies needs to be carefully managed. 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 Dec 21 23:14:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLCEVA18075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:14:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBLCEHH18058 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:14:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBLC6bU14605; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:06:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:06:34 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/21/2001 13:06:36 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Always wary about possible sharp practice, I'm still in doubt about the case of the "frustrating line of play". Here is one case, from a Belgian T4 match : A10xx KQx QJxx A 9x AK10x Qxx AKJxx Playing in 6NT, you've got an obvious line for 12 tricks : win whatever is the lead, check the clubs, unblock HA, go to dummy with QC, play HQ, and claim when she's covered. A good deal for an elementary course. But this particular East got a Diamond lead, to the Queen and Ace. He then decided, after checking the Clubs, to play his small Diamond to the nine, in effect ensuring his twelfth trick. You could always argue that if South doesn't take his DJ, you have now good chances for a 13th trick, but this is true of HK too. Thus the two lines are equal. Now, why would East choose the Diamond line ? Perhaps because he can claim earlier in the play. Perhaps, too, because of the "frustration factor". On seeing how declarer endeavoured to make 12 tricks, South (a good player but poor analyst) thought he had given the contract on the lead, and took a full hour to recover. Also, he raved about those players who weren't able to get at the far superior 6C. Well, perhaps they should have found _seven_ clubs, but East firmly believes that "great slams should not be played under the 110% mark", and he was right once more, since there is a choice of lines in 7C, one of which is failing, while at the other table, a trash weak 2 by North got E/W all the way to 4S. Now, assume East deliberately played on diamonds with the intent of giving South nightmares about his lead. Can he be declared guilty of sharp practice ? L74B4 is not the one to apply : whenever this East plays a contract, minutes are saved. Neither is L73D2, because East didn't pip, wave or gesture in any way. L74A2, then ? Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? Thank you for your comments. and here are mine: None of the laws you refer to, nor any other law in the book that I am aware of is applicable against East in this case. As a matter of fact, if South (or anybody else) summoned me as a director and asked for some action against East here, he (or she) would instead receive a warning from me to observe Law74A2, East has done nothing but correctly using the options he had to win his contract in possibly the most favourable way. Frankly, I would favour playing Diamonds instead of Hearts since that better preserves the possibilities to end up with all 13 tricks. (If the 9D wins cash AH, AD and AK, and run the clubs for a possible automatic double squeeze). The game of bridge includes quite a lot of psychology, and if South is brought off balance as descibed he has nobody but himself to blame. Just my $0,02 worth opinion. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 21 23:46:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLCkHa21838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:46:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBLCk8H21812 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:46:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBLCcNn20861; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:38:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] I need a psyche-iatrist To: "Takis Pournaras" Cc: "Bridge Laws" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:38:21 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/21/2001 13:38:26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras wrote and asked for comments on the following regulation: "3.22 Psychic calls 1. A psychic call of one of a suit in first, second or fourth seat is the bid where the addition of the two longest suits plus the number of HCP is less than 18 (rule of 18). A psychic call of 1NT in any seat is the opening where there are less than 10 HCP and a balanced distribution. Psychic bids are acceptable according to LAW 40 and if of course from the sequence of the bidding it is proved that even the bidder's partner could have been misled. The use of psychic call where the partner of the player who psyched avoided a normal call should be reported to the director, which in turn should inform the organizer. 2. Psychic bids in artificial forcing sequences are strictly forbidden and are considered gravest moral offence. 3. The organizers in local club tournaments may forbid psychic bids in first, second or forth seat. In case of violation and if the director is called before the end of round, if the non-offending side hasn't been damaged, the score stands and if the non-offending side has been damaged the director shall award an artificial score 60% of the top for the non-offending side and 20% for the offending side." It seems to me that this rule contradicts with Laws 12 (Director's discretionary powers), 40A (Partnership understandings) and 75B (Violations of partnership agreements). Your opinion would be very much helpful and appreciated. My comment: This is a major deviation from the definition of Psychic calls as given in the Bridge Laws which states: Psychic call - A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. Which implies the primary rule for a call to be accepted as a psychic call: It must be a major deviation from the partnership agreement (including partnership experience etc.)! Note that "partnership experience" is a tricky matter which can easily be brought in to disqualify calls from being accepted as psychic, and should if partner "knows" that there is a tendency to "psyche" in certain cases. The quoted regulation is directly in conflict both with the definitions in Chapter 1 and with law 40A. No national organisation has the power to issue such a regulation as far as I know. Part 3. above is not well thought: Say that a non-offending side is damaged from a psyche in that their score is not the 100% they would normally obtain but instead "only" 80%. This rule unconditionally instructs the director to assign them the artificial score of 60%! Try getting your organisation to observe what they are free to decide in their regulations. This regulation (as you have described) is certainly not within their powers. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 22 00:42:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLDg5Q02352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:42:05 +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 fBLDfqH02313 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBLDYGs27843 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:34:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:02:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David already spoke about preaching to the unconvertible. I echo that sentiment. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 12/20/01 at 4:56 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > > >>This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that >>was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H >>and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the >>damage the result of it. >> > > So an error by the NOS wipes out the infraction? I don't think I like that much. > :-) > No Ed, it does not wipe out the infraction. But surely you see that the bad score is not the result of the infraction ? OK, add the word "alone" to the end of that sentence. Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the revoke. NOs should get redress for the infraction, but certainly not for the revoke. Now of course there is a third factor, and you should also realize this, David. The infraction made it such that this particular revoke became very costly. There is no use in you two telling one another that "without the ..., the score would not be that bad", unless you -both of you- take charge of a bit of this combination damage. The problem is of course with the negative bit. So let us simplify some more to see what we get. Suppose the hesitation BW turns 5S into 6S. There are 12 tircks, and revoke makes 13. Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. With the infraction, the score would become +980. With the revoke, the score would become +510. With both, the score is +1010. So the consequent damage is +500. The subsequent damage is +30. The total damage is +530, so there is no "combined damage". Would you both agree that the 500 should be redressed, and the 30 not. Yes, Ed ? Now let us assume that there is in addition a (non-stupid) double. So the contract is 6SX. Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. With the infraction, the score would become +1210. With the revoke, the score would become +510. With both, the score is +1310. So the consequent damage is +730. The subsequent damage is +30. The total damage is +830, so there is +70 "combined damage". (the overtrick is worth more in the doubled contract). Who takes this ? Arguments like "without ... this would not happen" are symmetrical. Who takes it ? > Absent the revoke, iirc, the result is 6H making 6. OS got to 7H, and yes, it > should go down one. But they should not have been there, and they got there > through an infraction. I do not see why the revoke should negate all that. > > 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 Sat Dec 22 00:42:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLDg6E02356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:42:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBLDfsH02317 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:41:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBLDYKs27902 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:34:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C22FB6E.8050007@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:05:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> <00da01c189e3$df0ae820$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David Burn" > > >>Ed wrote: >> >> >>>>Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any >>>> >>damage. >> >>>Um, the score for 6H+1 is less than the score for 7H=. Seems to me >>> >>that >> >>>constitutes "damage" to the defenders, unless nobody else bid any >>> >>slam. >> >>This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that >>was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H >>and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the >>damage the result of it. >> >> > Edgar Kaplan once tried to explain the "consequent-subsequent" principle > with this example: > > ######## "Waterloo" snipped > ####### > > As an aside: I got this through Google after searching on "subsequent > consequent damage." This great search engine even brought up an appeals > case from the San Antonio NABC casebook. It was in the "members only" > section of the ACBL website, to which Google evidently has access. > Please read my other post to this thread. the Waterloo principle is not the only thing at stake here. There is some damage which can be called "combined". -- 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 Dec 22 01:42:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLEgL113384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:42:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBLEgBH13347 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:42:12 +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 16HQkp-0001aI-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:47:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011218164908.00b8d650@127.0.0.1> <005201c1881d$d5b19a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c1895b$cda11600$956c7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003d01c1895b$cda11600$956c7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >Assuming the revoke cannot be attributed to the irregularity, 7H= for >the >> >NOS, who were not damaged by the infraction. They damaged themselves. >> >> The problem with this whole line of argument lies in this assertion >> which is patently [hehe!!] false. >> >> The thirteenth trick was the NOS's fault: the Grand Slam rather than >> the Small Slam was the result of the infraction. > >Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any damage. >I don't think the above assertion is false - I think it's correct in >every particular. Damage is the difference between the score obtained after an event, and the score that would or might have been obtained without that event. The grand slam rather than the small slam affected the NOS's score adversely - and that is damage. -- 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 Dec 22 09:38:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLMc0I05043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:38:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBLMbpH05025 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:37:51 +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 fBLMUIB04607 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:30:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005701c18a6f$02ed65c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] I need a psyche-iatrist Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:19:59 -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: (in re the definition of what is a psychic call): > The quoted regulation is directly in conflict both with the definitions in > Chapter 1 and with law 40A. No national organisation has the power to issue > such a regulation as far as I know. > > Try getting your organisation to observe what they are free to decide in > their regulations. This regulation (as you have described) is certainly > not within their powers. > The ACBL does the same sort of thing in the Alert Procedure, defining "convention" with the '87 Laws' definition instead of the current one. They also say, in effect, that a 3-card 1H opening is a convention if the plan is to bid a longer suit on the next round. That's contrary to the Laws. They don't exactly say it's a convention, but they would have no other grounds for its current prohibition, since only conventions and ultra-lights may be contolled by an SO. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 22 10:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLN2rh09913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:02:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBLN2hH09886 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:02:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.85.91] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16HYZJ-000PQz-00; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:55:10 +0000 Message-ID: <004801c18a72$c1b5b360$5b55e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <00cf01c189e7$f49460a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:55:52 -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: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Ed wrote: > > > So an error by the NOS wipes out the infraction? I don't > > think I like that much. > > :-) > > It does not "wipe out the infraction". It has nothing to do > with the infraction. > > I said something a long time ago about preaching to the > unconvertible. Gordon Rainsford, whose first time it was > around this wearisome loop, urged me to continue. But > there comes a point at which... > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Ed is actually one of those I read here who says less and means more; he is definitely not 'unconvertible' by persuasion. In this case, like me, he seems content to apply the WBF ruling that I have quoted to give OS the result they have earned of 7H-1. When their action has not caused damage I see no reason to put the contract back to the level of six. In seven only the NOS is then to experience the effects of the self-inflicted subsequent damage. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 22 10:35:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBLNZNc16462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:35:23 +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 fBLNZEH16426 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:35:15 +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 fBLNRgB23613 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:27:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009c01c18a76$fd8f8560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:26:33 -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: "Herman De Wael" > Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the > revoke. NOs should get redress for the infraction, but > certainly not for the revoke. > > Now of course there is a third factor, and you should also > realize this, David. The infraction made it such that this > particular revoke became very costly. > > There is no use in you two telling one another that "without > the ..., the score would not be that bad", unless you -both > of you- take charge of a bit of this combination damage. > The rest is too complicated for me or any TDs of my acquaintance. Here's more, derived from a Kaplan response to Eric Landau's letter to the BW editor (1973): An E/W pair enter the auction in illegal fashion against a 1NT opening, and because of that E/W get to play a 2H contract. This should go -200 with any normal defense, but North revoked to let it make, a zero for N/S. The infraction "made it such that this particular revoke became vary costly." Given the table result, North protested: had it not been for the infraction they would have been -100, not -110 (and North would have been dummy, incapable of revoking). True, but irrelevant. The damage (-110) was a direct consequence not of the infraction but of the revoke. The damage came after the infraction, and also came after the battle of Waterloo. It was subsequent, not consequent. E/W get an adjusted score, but N/S keep the zero they have earned. How would you rule on this one, Herman? Any different? Now, everyone, does E/W get -200 or +100? I say +100. Edgar didn't say. If N/S had (not irrationally) pushed on to 2NT for -200, then -200 for E/W, -100 for N/S. This would be an example of a score adjustment based on a possible OS result subsequent to the infraction, not absent the infraction. So, Adam W., L12C2 should have the words "after the irregularity" added to "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." Just to make it clear. 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 Dec 22 14:55:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBM3sep03452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:54:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz ([210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBM3sVH03427 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:54:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19206 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2001 03:40:25 -0000 Received: from ppp-ipn-466.morenet.net.nz (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.212) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2001 03:40:25 -0000 Message-ID: <00d101c18b4a$28c93400$cf15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <009c01c18a76$fd8f8560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:38:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the > > revoke. NOs should get redress for the infraction, but > > certainly not for the revoke. > > > > Now of course there is a third factor, and you should also > > realize this, David. The infraction made it such that this > > particular revoke became very costly. > > > > There is no use in you two telling one another that "without > > the ..., the score would not be that bad", unless you -both > > of you- take charge of a bit of this combination damage. > > > The rest is too complicated for me or any TDs of my acquaintance. > Here's more, derived from a Kaplan response to Eric Landau's letter > to the BW editor (1973): > > An E/W pair enter the auction in illegal fashion against a 1NT > opening, and because of that E/W get to play a 2H contract. This > should go -200 with any normal defense, but North revoked to let it > make, a zero for N/S. The infraction "made it such that this > particular revoke became vary costly." Given the table result, North > protested: had it not been for the infraction they would have > been -100, not -110 (and North would have been dummy, incapable of > revoking). True, but irrelevant. The damage (-110) was a direct > consequence not of the infraction but of the revoke. The damage came > after the infraction, and also came after the battle of Waterloo. It > was subsequent, not consequent. With all due respect to Edgar Kaplan, I believe in the strongest possible way that his conclusion here is wrong. The revoke was subsequent but the damage, in terms of the score, was both subsequent to and consequent on the infraction. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 Mobile 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 22 16:07:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBM56b217327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 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 rhenium ([194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBM56SH17301 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:06:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-173-87.btinternet.com ([213.1.173.87] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16HeFI-0006uP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 04:58:53 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 04:57:03 -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 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: > Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the > revoke. This is not true. The infraction did not cause the bad result; only the revoke did that. The infraction would have "caused" a good result but for the revoke - yet the truth is that the infraction has caused nothing, nor has it done damage. The infraction has merely created a situation in which the wave function will collapse differently. Someone else, perhaps Adam, will explain to you what that means, though you probably know already. The fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is especially insidious. For example: [DWS] Damage is the difference between the score obtained after an event, and the score that would or might have been obtained without that event. No, it isn't. Damage is "hurt, injury, loss" [Chambers]. Do my opponents hurt me, injure me, or cause me loss, when they bid a grand slam missing the ace of trumps? It's all right. I know the answer. They hurt me, injure me, and cause me loss when I fail to take a trick with the ace of trumps. Whereas the foregoing would seem entirely ludicrous to any layman who might wander in, there are real live bridge players with two legs who see nothing incongruous in it at all. I have indicated already that I am not willing to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what flesh and blood can stand. 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 Dec 22 16:24:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBM5ORt17665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:24:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBM5OJH17661 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:24:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-173-87.btinternet.com ([213.1.173.87] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16HeWa-0005wj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:16:45 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:15:46 -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 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: > David already spoke about preaching to the unconvertible. > > I echo that sentiment. So far, so good. > No Ed, it does not wipe out the infraction. But surely you > see that the bad score is not the result of the infraction ? You have fallen into a not uncommon trap, which is to use the word "surely" as a synonym for "in no way whatsoever". > Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the > revoke. NOs should get redress for the infraction, but > certainly not for the revoke. The foregoing is complete nonsense, as I have tried to explain in a previous post (qv, or not qv). The bad result was caused by the revoke, and by the revoke alone; the infraction of itself caused nothing, it merely created a different set of potential outcomes. > Now of course there is a third factor, and you should also > realize this, David. Oh, go on. I will do my best. > The infraction made it such that this > particular revoke became very costly. See above re different potential outcomes. So what? > There is no use in you two telling one another that "without > the ..., the score would not be that bad", unless you -both > of you- take charge of a bit of this combination damage. I don't see any practical difficulty with the notion that "they did this to us, and we did this to ourselves, so the score ought to be what would have happened if we disallow their action but assume that our stupidity would have happened anyway". That is, I believe that we could implement a policy in England along those lines. > So let us simplify some more to see what we get. Suppose > the hesitation BW turns 5S into 6S. There are 12 tricks, > and revoke makes 13. > > Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. > With the infraction, the score would become +980. > With the revoke, the score would become +510. > With both, the score is +1010. > > So the consequent damage is +500. > The subsequent damage is +30. > The total damage is +530, so there is no "combined damage". > Would you both agree that the 500 should be redressed, and > the 30 not. Yes, Ed ? I'll go along with that. > Now let us assume that there is in addition a (non-stupid) > double. So the contract is 6SX. > Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. > With the infraction, the score would become +1210. > With the revoke, the score would become +510. > With both, the score is +1310. > > So the consequent damage is +730. > The subsequent damage is +30. > The total damage is +830, so there is +70 "combined damage". > (the overtrick is worth more in the doubled contract). > > Who takes this ? > > Arguments like "without ... this would not happen" are > symmetrical. Who takes it ? Who takes what? 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 Dec 22 17:36:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBM6a7617707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:36:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBM6ZxH17703 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:35:59 +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 fBM6SRB28223 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:28:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002001c18ab1$d11bf780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:27:46 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > > If N/S had (not irrationally) pushed on to 2NT for -200, then -200 > for E/W, -100 for N/S. This would be an example of a score > adjustment based on a possible OS result subsequent to the > infraction, not absent the infraction. So, Adam W., L12C2 should > have the words "after the irregularity" added to "the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." Just to make it clear. > Not quite right. Make that: "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable in any event." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 22 17:58:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBM6wG517724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:58:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBM6w9H17720 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:58:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBM6oaB07307 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:50:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002801c18ab4$e806f140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <009c01c18a76$fd8f8560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00d101c18b4a$28c93400$cf15b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:50:07 -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 From: "Wayne Burrows" > With all due respect to Edgar Kaplan, I believe in the strongest possible > way that his conclusion here is wrong. > > The revoke was subsequent but the damage, in terms of the score, was both > subsequent to and consequent on the infraction. > Isn't there some principle in civil law that pertains to this subject? Judge: "No, Mr. Jones, the fact that Mr. Smith delayed you on your way to work by illegally blocking your way does not make him responsible for the fact that you then wrecked your car speeding to get to work on time." "But it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't made me late! He broke the law, and he owes me!" "Sorry, Mr. Jones. Your accident was subsequent to that infraction, but not an attributable consequence of it. You damaged yourself with your irrational driving, and therefore cannot expect redress." "However, for breaking the law I am fining Mr. Smith an amount of money equal to your car's value." Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 00:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMDrRE01404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBMDr7H01387 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:07 +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 16HmSs-000GgS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:45:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:02:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I need a psyche-iatrist References: <001101c18a0a$c96bdd40$1456a8c0@Anax> In-Reply-To: <001101c18a0a$c96bdd40$1456a8c0@Anax> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras writes >I'm encountering some difficulties with a regulation of the Hellenic Bridge >Federation about psychic calls: > >"3.22 Psychic calls > >1. A psychic call of one of a suit in first, second or fourth seat is the >bid where the addition of the two longest suits plus the number of HCP is >less than 18 (rule of 18). A psychic call of 1NT in any seat is the opening >where there are less than 10 HCP and a balanced distribution. Psychic bids >are acceptable according to LAW 40 and if of course from the sequence of the >bidding it is proved that even the bidder's partner could have been misled. >The use of psychic call where the partner of the player who psyched avoided >a normal call should be reported to the director, which in turn should >inform the organizer. It is hardly gross when a small deviation is found, especially one which would be considered normal judgement. If KT9xx KJT9 J JT9 is a normal opening 1S for a pair then it is hardly a psyche to open KT9xx KJT9 T JT9 >2. Psychic bids in artificial forcing sequences are strictly forbidden and >are considered gravest moral offence. > >3. The organizers in local club tournaments may forbid psychic bids in >first, second or forth seat. In case of violation and if the director is >called before the end of round, if the non-offending side hasn't been >damaged, the score stands and if the non-offending side has been damaged the >director shall award an artificial score 60% of the top for the >non-offending side and 20% for the offending side." > >It seems to me that this rule contradicts with Laws 12 (Director's >discretionary powers), 40A (Partnership understandings) and 75B (Violations >of partnership agreements). > >Your opinion would be very much helpful and appreciated. #1 seems ok, apart from the definition of a psyche: fielding is considered an offence under L40. #2 is certainly legal under L40D. #3 is not legal where the opening bid is non-conventional, but is legal if it is conventional. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 00:55:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMDrMG01401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBMDr3H01383 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:03 +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 16HmSs-000GgQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:45:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:49:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@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, > >Always wary about possible sharp practice, I'm still in doubt about the >case of the "frustrating line of play". Here is one case, from a Belgian T4 >match : > > A10xx KQx > QJxx A > 9x AK10x > Qxx AKJxx > >Playing in 6NT, you've got an obvious line for 12 tricks : win whatever is >the lead, check the clubs, unblock HA, go to dummy with QC, play HQ, and >claim when she's covered. A good deal for an elementary course. >But this particular East got a Diamond lead, to the Queen and Ace. He then >decided, after checking the Clubs, to play his small Diamond to the nine, >in effect ensuring his twelfth trick. >You could always argue that if South doesn't take his DJ, you have now good >chances for a 13th trick, but this is true of HK too. Thus the two lines >are equal. >Now, why would East choose the Diamond line ? Perhaps because he can claim >earlier in the play. Perhaps, too, because of the "frustration factor". >On seeing how declarer endeavoured to make 12 tricks, South (a good player >but poor analyst) thought he had given the contract on the lead, and took a >full hour to recover. Also, he raved about those players who weren't able >to get at the far superior 6C. Well, perhaps they should have found _seven_ >clubs, but East firmly believes that "great slams should not be played >under the 110% mark", and he was right once more, since there is a choice >of lines in 7C, one of which is failing, while at the other table, a trash >weak 2 by North got E/W all the way to 4S. > >Now, assume East deliberately played on diamonds with the intent of giving >South nightmares about his lead. Can he be declared guilty of sharp practice ? >L74B4 is not the one to apply : whenever this East plays a contract, >minutes are saved. >Neither is L73D2, because East didn't pip, wave or gesture in any way. >L74A2, then ? Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? I see no sharp practice in playing on your opponents' weaknesses. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 00:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMDrPP01403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBMDr8H01389 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:09 +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 16HmSs-000GgP-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:43:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Ed wrote: > >> > Yes, but the grand slam rather than the small slam didn't do any >damage. >> >> Um, the score for 6H+1 is less than the score for 7H=. Seems to me >that >> constitutes "damage" to the defenders, unless nobody else bid any >slam. > >This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes, there has been damage, but that >was done by (and only by) the revoke. The fact that the contract was 7H >and not 6H exacerbated the damage, but it did not cause it, nor was the >damage the result of it. How do you test whether B is the result of A? Surely, you find out whether we B would have happened in the absence of A, and if it would not have happened, then B is the result of A. If the Os had not bid the Grand slam, then a score of -2210 *could not* have happened. Therefore -2210 is as a result of them bidding a Grand Slam: it is consequent on them bidding the Grand slam. Ok, there may be another cause: there is in the example, the revoke. But that does not alter the fact that bidding the Grand slam caused the Grand slam to be made, at least in part. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 00:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMDrNG01402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBMDr3H01384 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:53:03 +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 16HmSs-000GgR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:45:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:54:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Alain asked, > >> Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? > >I think so. I know some players who really *hate* being squeezed and I >consider it "good bridge" to attempt to squeeze these players rather than >take an alternative (same percentage) line. I want my opponents to be >frustrated on the following hands. > >However, I would consider it sharp if, after the squeeze, I turned to my >opponent and said sympathetically "Never mind, I always find it difficult >knowing what to keep." > >IMO it's OK to give an opponent a chance to make a mistake instead of >playing for a genuine position - particularly when the mistake will damage >partnership harmony. It becomes sharp if you point out the mistake >afterwards. > >It's OK to make a palooka type mistake (foregoing an overtrick) early in a >team match in the hope oppos will underestimate you later. It's sharp if >you pretend not to understand the mistake you made. > >In summary then, *anything* I can do to annoy/frustrate/deceive my >opponents based purely on my choice of line is normal competitive >practice. > >Obviously if you are playing pairs/cut-in the timing of such strategies >needs to be carefully managed. Let me tell you a story of timing. I was playing in a knockout rubber bridge game with a time limit. No-one at the table would dream of sitting there and doing nothing deliberately to waste time. I reached 4S and discovered that there were 11 easy tricks, enough to win the match. Unfortunately, there seemed to me to be just time to start another hand - and the match was reasonably close. So, I drew trumps, and led a loser from dummy, discarding a winner on it, reducing myself to ten tricks. LHO was surprised to put it mildly. He was so surprised that he stopped and thought for about three minutes, trying to work out what I was doing. As a result of his thinking, we were just out of time to start another hand so we won. Any problems with this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 05:33:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMIX7Q07621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:33:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBMIWxH07617 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 7215 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2001 18:18:47 -0000 Received: from ppp-ipn-521.morenet.net.nz (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.13) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2001 18:18:47 -0000 Message-ID: <004001c18bc4$e0a2c8a0$0d18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:17:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There has been much talk of paying the price for bad bridge and revokes and things. The arguement is that if a NOS revokes subsequent to the infraction then that side pays in 100's or 200's or more for its stupidity. I have a question? How does the offending side pay for its revoke? Here is a scenario: NOS are booked for a '400' game; OS offends - as they do; NOS are now booked for 100; OS revokes; NOS get 300; Director adjusts to 400/420 or whatever for both sides; How have the OS been penalized for their revoke? Yet some are ready to jump on the NOS and penalize them - is this fair? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 23 05:51:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMIpHS08955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:51:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBMIp8H08936 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:51:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 8707 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2001 18:36:57 -0000 Received: from ppp-ipn-521.morenet.net.nz (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.13) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2001 18:36:57 -0000 Message-ID: <005801c18bc7$6a5b36c0$0d18b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <009c01c18a76$fd8f8560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00d101c18b4a$28c93400$cf15b9d2@laptop> <002801c18ab4$e806f140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:35:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > With all due respect to Edgar Kaplan, I believe in the strongest > possible > > way that his conclusion here is wrong. > > > > The revoke was subsequent but the damage, in terms of the score, > was both > > subsequent to and consequent on the infraction. > > > > Isn't there some principle in civil law that pertains to this > subject? Maybe but this is not civil law. In particular Civil law does not have a law that states you are entitled to the most favourable likely outcome without the infraction. My statement was in reply to a statement, sentence in fact "It was subsequent, not consequent." in HdW's post derived from a BW article. The previous sentence in HdW's post was that "The damage came after the infraction, and also came after the battle of Waterloo. " Indeed, but one cannot deduce that because it was subsequent then it was not consequent. These two words are not mutually exclusive. There is an obvious overlap. The current laws use IMO a weaker concept of '...results in...'. And furthermore when such damage has occurred then we are instructed to give the NOS the most favourable likely result without the infraction. This is not a statement about whether this is a good law or not but it is a statement of what, I believe, the law as it is written states should happen following this type of 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 Sun Dec 23 06:25:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMJOrv15033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 06:24:53 +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 fBMJOiH15004 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 06:24:44 +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 fBMJHAB01296 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:17:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004f01c18b1c$ce11c220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <004001c18bc4$e0a2c8a0$0d18b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:13:51 -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: "Wayne Burrows" > There has been much talk of paying the price for bad bridge and revokes and > things. > > The arguement is that if a NOS revokes subsequent to the infraction then > that side pays in 100's or 200's or more for its stupidity. > > I have a question? > > How does the offending side pay for its revoke? > > Here is a scenario: > > NOS are booked for a '400' game; > OS offends - as they do; > NOS are now booked for 100; > OS revokes; > NOS get 300; > Director adjusts to 400/420 or whatever for both sides; > How have the OS been penalized for their revoke? > > Yet some are ready to jump on the NOS and penalize them - is this fair? The NOS aren't automatically required to keep a *result* in which they revoked. Only when not revoking would have produced a satisfactory result. They also keep a revoke (usually) if the adjustment for them is to a different-level contract in the same denomination, with the same declarer. If the adjustment is to a different denomination or different declarer, the revoke is forgotten. Like the NOS, a revoke by the OS is forgotten if their adjusted score is to a contract played by the other side. The table result didn't happen for them, so there is no penalty for their revoke in that contract. So, in regard to revokes each side is treated equally, and that is fair. 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 Dec 23 08:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBML4Tt04789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:04:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBML3WH04679 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:03:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id DAADB8F0D; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:55:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000901c18721$4260df80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c18721$4260df80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:31:09 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation 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 9:35 AM -0800 12/17/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> At 5:56 PM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> >Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies >> >to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was >> >included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got >> >shot down on that. >> > > Who shot you down, Marv? What ammunition did they use? I've checked >> the list archives -- I find no convincing arguments for this >> position, nor any references to an official interpretation. > >It was probably buried in an unrelated thread. Someone help out here, I >don't remember who shot me down. I think I came up with an example >auction, but I can't remember it, and can't imagine what it could have >been. There were several examples. One was a slam reached via illegal use of UI that would have been set with a different lead. In another fourth hand opened the bidding on a marginal hand after second hand hesitated and was prevented from going set in 2H when the opponents carried on to 2S, also off a trick. >Or they could have said, "for an offending side, the most unfavorable >result that was (had been?) at all probable subsequent to the infraction." This confuses a priori and post priori probability. Eric Landau was most eloquent on this point. I'll quote everything he said if I must! Briefly, everything subsequent to the irregularity is known - each action that occurred has probability 1, each that did not occur has probability zero. What we do not know is what would have happened absent the illegal action, and this is surely what the laws would like us to focus on. >Here is a possible example for an adjustment on that basis if it was their >intention. > >A player uses UI to take a 5H sacrifice over 4S. His LHO bids 5S, an >unjustified, wild, gambling bid, LHO counting on redress if it isn't >successful. His partner would surely have doubled 5H for 800. 5S goes down >one, but result stands for the NOS. For the OS, the most unfavorable >result that was at all probable "had the irregularity not occurred" >is -620. Change that to "subsequent to the irregularity" and maybe they >get -800. I believe the current WBFLC position is that an anulling action >by the NOS is treated as not having happened when deciding on an OS >adjustment. The post priori probability of -800 for the OS is zero. We need not speculate as to how often it would have happened -- we know that it did not happen. >Anyway, I suggest to the LC that they reword L12C2 to make it clear that >"had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the OS as well as the NOS, >or, alternatively, add "subsequent to the irregularity" for the OS. I strongly suggest the first. If the second I think much more would be required -- as things stand the concept is meaningless to me. Note, for instance, that you have argued that while the bidding might go differently we should not assume any different lead, play or defense unaffected by the infraction. I can't imagine why you make that distinction -- surely it's not embodied in the current 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 Sun Dec 23 08:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBML4SW04788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:04:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBML3XH04680 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:03:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 8F13E8F3C; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:55:57 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:55:53 -0500 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: RE: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was 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 9:36 AM +0100 12/18/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood >> > for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. > >Words like 'perverse' as clear as they seem to be hardly ever support the >opinion given. We are so suspicious. I used the word advisedly -- I intended the sense of it to be "unsupported by the text." It probably was not a good choice, though -- it seems each side of this argument considers the other side's interpretation perverse. That said, I did not use the term to support my argument. I gave a number of reasons. >Can somebody explain me why this sub thread has been started? I started in in reply to an assertion from Marv that I did not think should go unchallenged. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement among bridge administrators as to the meaning of this seemingly straightforward sentence. This disagreement could lead to different rulings depending on ones interpretation. I'd thus like to bring the disagreement out into the open. Surely this is one of the main purposes of this list. >To be honest I don't remember any case in which the adjusted score >for the OS was not based on a result had the irregularity not >occurred. Surely it's better for us to know how the laws require us to rule before such a case comes up rather than afterwards. Marv has given one hypothetical example and in my latest post to him I've summarized two more from the archives. -- 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 Sun Dec 23 08:22:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMLMYw08003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:22:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBMLMPH07985 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:22:26 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 2391A9820C; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:14:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:14:45 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation 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 10:30 AM +0000 12/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky writes > >Suppose I were a committee member faced with making a 12C2 adjustment >>and you were a director instructing the committee as to the >>application of the laws. How would you explain the adjustment for the >>OS? > > Of course, the question is whether you want me to be helpful or not. I don't understand -- isn't being helpful part of a director's job? > When explaining something I tend to explain it quite widely. Such an >explanation, if I really felt it needed to include this rare case, would >no doubt include "and you can give an adjustment that goes via the >irregularity, if this turns out to be the most unfavourable result that >was at all probable". I wouldn't understand that either. Suppose my side makes illegal use of UI to get to a major suit game depending on three two-way finesses. It's a priori 7-1 against my getting all three right, yet for once I do guess them all correctly. How do you adjust and why? -- 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 Sun Dec 23 08:51:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBMLovr13373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:50:57 +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-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 fBMLolH13354 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:50:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.29.172] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16HtvE-0004Ce-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:43:12 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:40:25 -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: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Herman wrote: > > > David already spoke about preaching to the unconvertible. > > > > I echo that sentiment. > > So far, so good. > > > No Ed, it does not wipe out the infraction. But surely you > > see that the bad score is not the result of the infraction ? > > You have fallen into a not uncommon trap, which is to use > the word "surely" as a synonym for "in no way whatsoever". > > > Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the > > revoke. NOs should get redress for the infraction, but > > certainly not for the revoke. > > The foregoing is complete nonsense, as I have tried to > explain in a previous post (qv, or not qv). The bad result > was caused by the revoke, and by the revoke alone; the > infraction of itself caused nothing, it merely created a > different set of potential outcomes. > > > Now of course there is a third factor, and you should > > also realize this, David. > > Oh, go on. I will do my best. > > > The infraction made it such that this > > particular revoke became very costly. > > See above re different potential outcomes. So what? > > > There is no use in you two telling one another that > > "without the ..., the score would not be that bad", > > unless you -both of you- take charge of a bit of this > > combination damage. > > I don't see any practical difficulty with the notion that > "they did this to us, and we did this to ourselves, so > the score ought to be what would have happened if > we disallow their action but assume that our stupidity > would have happened anyway". That is, I believe that > we could implement a policy in England along those > lines. > > > So let us simplify some more to see what we get. > > Suppose the hesitation BW turns 5S into 6S. > > There are 12 tricks, and revoke makes 13. > > > > Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. > > With the infraction, the score would become +980. > > With the revoke, the score would become +510. > > With both, the score is +1010. > > > > So the consequent damage is +500. > > The subsequent damage is +30. > > The total damage is +530, so there is no > > "combined damage". Would you both agree that > > the 500 should be redressed, and the 30 not. > > Yes, Ed ? > > I'll go along with that. > > > Now let us assume that there is in addition a > > (non-stupid) double. So the contract is 6SX. > > Without infraction and revoke, the score is +480. > > With the infraction, the score would become +1210. > > With the revoke, the score would become +510. > > With both, the score is +1310. > > > > So the consequent damage is +730. > > The subsequent damage is +30. > > The total damage is +830, so there is +70 > > "combined damage". (the overtrick is worth > > more in the doubled contract). > > > > Who takes this ? > > > > Arguments like "without ... this would not happen" > > are symmetrical. Who takes it ? > > Who takes what? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Exactly....... Well, approximately, anyway..... er, maybe..... On the other hand the Law actually authorizes the Director to 'stand ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage'. Did someone offer the opinion that this infraction had not resulted in damage? ~ 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 Dec 23 11:37:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN0aLS13693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:36:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from home.pacprod.com (home.pacprod.com [209.78.120.199]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBN0aEH13682 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:36:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from roadrunner.pacprod.com ([209.78.120.197]) by home.pacprod.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:31:42 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Winter Greetings from Nancy From: Nancy To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <076da42310017c1HOME@home.pacprod.com> Date: 22 Dec 2001 16:31:42 -0800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b6432c221619273n Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! *********Check These Out!********* GET A NEXTCARD VISA in 30 seconds! Get APR as low as 2.99 percent Intro or 9.99 percent Ongoing and No Annual Fee! Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to apply for a NextCard now! http://www.nextcard.com/index6.html?ref=aff0032530 ------------------------------------ HEAR WHO'S CALLING YOU WHILE YOUR ONLINE!!! Get the FREE the Internet Answering Machine... Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to download the free software! http://www.pacprod.com/callwave ------------------------------------ Join ClubMom today for FREE and get your six-week recipe for family bonding and a chance to win a $5,000 Family Vacation! Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window for your chance to win! http://www.pacprod.com/clubmom ==================================== Joke Of The Day - http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Random Quotes - http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm Today In History - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl 1000's Of Gifts And Collectibles - http://www.pacprod.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 Dec 23 11:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN0iKa15047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:44:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBN0i8H15015 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:44:09 +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 16Hwco-0002ux-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:36:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:54:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Merry Xmas! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk + / /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* DAVID + LIZ ___ ___ || |___|___| || QUANGO + | | | || --- --- NANKI POO -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 11:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN0iMY15057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:44:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBN0i9H15019 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:44:10 +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 16Hwcq-0002v5-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:36:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:59:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >I have indicated already that I am not willing >to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be >placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with >apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what flesh >and blood can stand. Oh dear, David, were you losing an argument again? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 11:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN0wZL17496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:58:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBN0wQH17474 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:58:27 +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 fBN0orB12999 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:50:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00aa01c18b4b$11af6540$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Calculating Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:36:06 -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 We need a simple procedure for handling damage claims in bridge. Like this: procedure MARV begin if the OS's score benefited from the irregularity then adjust the OS score per L12C2 if irrational OS bridge enabled that benefit then table result stands for the OS exit else adjust the NOS score per L12C2 endif endif end Instruction 1: if the table contract is adjusted to another level of the same denomination, with the same declarer, assume an identical line of play unless there is a reasonable chance that the original NOS play was adversely affected by the irregularity (including the change of level). Instruction 2: The "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the OS may be one that comes after the irregularity or just before it, but the "most favorable result that was likely" must be based on the assumption that the irregularity did not occur. Instruction 3: When adjusting scores, assume that the NOS plays excellent bridge and the OS plays bad bridge. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 23 12:13:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN1D1o19959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:13:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBN1CrH19942 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-153-29.btinternet.com ([213.122.153.29] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Hx4W-000613-00; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:05:00 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c18b4d$b6543880$1d997ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:03:57 -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 DWS writes: > >I have indicated already that I am not willing > >to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be > >placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with > >apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what flesh > >and blood can stand. > > Oh dear, David, were you losing an argument again? No. Just wasting time. 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 Dec 23 14:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBN3Sh613480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:28:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f143.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBN3SZH13459 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:28:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:20:56 -0800 Received: from 172.136.101.73 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 03:20:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.136.101.73] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:20:56 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2001 03:20:56.0488 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5E6D280:01C18B60] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >DWS writes: > > >I have indicated already that I am not willing > > >to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be > > >placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with > > >apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what >flesh > > >and blood can stand. > > > > Oh dear, David, were you losing an argument again? > >No. Just wasting time. > >David Burn >London, England I wouldn't say that. I have at least understood your argument, or I think I have. The only thing left I would ask is whether or not this only applies to cases where there's a lost potential to gain. You've already stated you'd apply it to illegal contracts that should go down. What about opponents biding illegally to 2C; the field is in 2 vulnerable hearts your way down one and you blank on defense, deftly holding 2C to 3 -- do you still get your bottom? What if your stupidity caused no damage? Opponents bid illegally to some contract and you revoke twice. You could never get a good result in their contract, but is there still the same "liability for your own mistakes?" -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 Sun Dec 23 22:09:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNB8ln27313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:08:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBNB8bH27288 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:08:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-165-195.btinternet.com ([213.122.165.195] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16I6NI-0003f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:01:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c18ba0$f8d32560$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:59:57 -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 Todd wrote: > > > Oh dear, David, were you losing an argument again? > > > >No. Just wasting time. > I wouldn't say that. I have at least understood your argument, or I > think I have. Must be Christmas. > The only thing left I would ask is whether or not this only > applies to cases where there's a lost potential to gain. My position is that if an infraction deprives the NOS of the potential to achieve result X where result X is greater than all results obtainable following the infraction, then - provided that result X is "likely" - the score for the NOS is adjusted per L12C2 to result X. That is, if the infraction leads to the NOS defending 5H doubled instead of making 4S, and if 5H doubled cannot go more than three down non-vulnerable while 4S is cold, then the NOS get +620. But if an infraction creates the potential for the NOS to achieve result Y, where result Y is greater than all results obtainable following the infraction, then - provided the failure to achieve result Y was through folly on the NOS's part unrelated to the infraction - the score for the NOS is their table score. That is, if the infraction leads to the NOS defending 5H doubled instead of making 4S, and if 5H doubled should go for 800 if the defenders do not revoke, then when the defenders do revoke, their score remains at +300. Now, this means that if in the first scenario, the defenders revoke and get 100 instead of 500, their score is still adjusted to 620 - they pay, in effect, no penalty for having revoked. There is an argument to the effect that their score should be adjusted according to a formula which says: the infraction robbed them of 120 aggregate points, while the revoke cost them 400 aggregate points, so we somehow restore to them the 120 but not the 400. I don't object to this, but I don't really see the need for it, nor am I sure how it would operate in practice. In the second scenario, however, the defenders do pay for having revoked. Is this fair? My view is that in the first case, the infraction has done damage (by reducing the NOS's potential from 620 to 500); that damage must be redressed; and the only practical way to do this is to say in effect that the play following the damage is cancelled because the 5H bid is disallowed - the contract at this table never was 5H doubled, so the defence to it never happened. In the second case, the infraction has done no damage - on the contrary, it has done good to the NOS; so there is nothing to redress and no reason to cancel the bid of 5H and the events subsequent thereto. If those events included a revoke, the penalty for that revoke is accordingly applied - at this table, the contract was 5H doubled. There is an argument to the effect that once the defenders get a worse score than they ought to have done defending 5H doubled, the infraction has then done damage. This is one of the clearest and most striking examples of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" that I have encountered, yet you will find that it is persisted in. > You've already > stated you'd apply it to illegal contracts that should go down. What about > opponents biding illegally to 2C; the field is in 2 vulnerable hearts your > way down one and you blank on defense, deftly holding 2C to 3 -- do you > still get your bottom? If a non-absurd defence would have allowed you to hold 2C to eight tricks, thus scoring a top for -90 instead of a bottom for -110, then the infraction has done no damage, and the second of my scenarios above should be followed. The definition of "non-absurd" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. > What if your stupidity caused no damage? Opponents > bid illegally to some contract and you revoke twice. You could never get a > good result in their contract, but is there still the same "liability for > your own mistakes?" If you could never obtain a result as good as that which you were "likely" to obtain without the infraction, then the infraction has done damage; it and the effects of it are cancelled, and your score is restored to the most favourable of those you could otherwise have obtained. In such a case, you are not liable for any folly you may have committed during the play of a contract that should not have been played - the first of my scenarios above is followed. 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 Dec 23 22:10:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNBAZq27589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBNBAQH27564 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-165-195.btinternet.com ([213.122.165.195] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16I6P4-0002qg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:02:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c18ba1$3b8bd5a0$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:01:49 -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: > +=+ Exactly....... Well, approximately, anyway..... > er, maybe..... > On the other hand the Law actually authorizes > the Director to 'stand ready to assign an adjusted > score if he considers that an infraction of law has > resulted in damage'. Did someone offer the opinion > that this infraction had not resulted in damage? I seem to remember writing words to that effect. But, since Stevenson does not believe them, they cannot possibly be true. 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 Dec 23 22:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNBwVS06966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:58:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBNBwLH06933 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:58:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.5] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16I79Q-000LsD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:50:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c18ba8$462b6460$0502e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:49:46 -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: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > How do you test whether B is the result of A? Surely, > you find out whether we B would have happened in the > absence of A, and if it would not have happened, then > B is the result of A. > > If the Os had not bid the Grand slam, then a score of > -2210 *could not* have happened. Therefore -2210 is > as a result of them bidding a Grand Slam: it is > consequent on them bidding the Grand slam. > > Ok, there may be another cause: there is in the > example, the revoke. But that does not alter the fact > that bidding the Grand slam caused the Grand slam > to be made, at least in part. > +=+ It is all very well for you to quote your personal opinion, but David, can you cite an authority for this view? In my experience authorities would take the view that the number of tricks made here is solely a consequence of the revoke and without the revoke there is no damage arising from illegal arrival in the contract. I think your reasoning is dubious. If you decide to drive your car from A to B via country lanes rather than along the main road, hit a patch of oil and skid into a tree, I would regard it as a result of hitting the oil not of taking the country lanes, even though these were the location for the accident. The accident follows upon your choice of route but is a consequence of failing to avoid the oil patch; by choosing the route you did not commit yourself to the skid. ~ 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 Dec 23 23:47:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNCl7a17274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:47:07 +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-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 fBNCkvH17246 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:46:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.33.134] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16I7uT-0002yR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:39:21 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c18baf$10dc5f60$0502e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> <000b01c18ba1$3b8bd5a0$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:38:41 -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, December 23, 2001 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Exactly....... Well, approximately, anyway..... > > er, maybe..... > > On the other hand the Law actually authorizes > > the Director to 'stand ready to assign an adjusted > > score if he considers that an infraction of law has > > resulted in damage'. Did someone offer the opinion > > that this infraction had not resulted in damage? > > I seem to remember writing words to that effect. > +=+ It is strange, is it not, that from this common belief we infer different conclusions, you and I? +=+ > > But, since Stevenson does not believe them, they > cannot possibly be true. > +=+ "Do you remember that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said 'How well he spoke', but when Demosthenes had finished speaking they said 'Let us march'?" (Adlai Stevenson). +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 03:33:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNGVY600233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:31:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBNGVOH00212 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:31:26 +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 QAA14264 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:24:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:13:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Herman wrote: > >> Two things caused the bad result. The infraction and the >> revoke. > >This is not true. The infraction did not cause the bad result; only the >revoke did that. The infraction would have "caused" a good result but >for the revoke - yet the truth is that the infraction has caused >nothing, nor has it done damage. The infraction has merely created a >situation in which the wave function will collapse differently. Someone >else, perhaps Adam, will explain to you what that means, though you >probably know already. > >The fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is especially insidious. For >example: > >[DWS] >Damage is the difference between the score obtained after an event, >and the score that would or might have been obtained without that event. > >No, it isn't. Damage is "hurt, injury, loss" [Chambers]. Do my opponents >hurt me, injure me, or cause me loss, when they bid a grand slam missing >the ace of trumps? > >It's all right. I know the answer. They hurt me, injure me, and cause me >loss when I fail to take a trick with the ace of trumps. Whereas the >foregoing would seem entirely ludicrous to any layman who might wander >in, there are real live bridge players with two legs who see nothing >incongruous in it at all. I have indicated already that I am not willing >to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be >placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with >apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what flesh >and blood can stand. > right. Now. Do you award 6H+1 to the NOs, or 7H=?. That's all I want to know. cheers john. >David Burn >London, England > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 05:03:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNI3Ec16957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:03:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBNI35H16927 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-181-200.btinternet.com ([213.1.181.200] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ICqN-0004Cm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 17:55:28 +0000 Message-ID: <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 17:54:25 -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 John wrote: > right. Now. Do you award 6H+1 to the NOs, or 7H=?. That's all I want to > know. cheers john. I believe that, since if the NOS had not revoked the score would have been 7H-1, the award should be 7H making. That is, because the infraction did not do damage, it is not cancelled, and what followed from it is the table result (as far as the NOS is concerned). I am aware of an argument to the effect that the NOS should be awarded 6H+1, keeping the self-inflicted damage but not suffering the effects of the infraction. I do not subscribe to it myself, largely because I consider it impossible that a side which has bid to 7H missing the trump ace can have committed the infraction of using unauthorised information (since they patently have not used any information at all). But it has some merit. The notion that the NOS should receive 6H making because they would not have revoked defending 6H has, as far as I can see, none at all. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 05:43:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNIhaa24363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:43:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBNIhRH24343 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:43:28 +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 fBNIZpB15431 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:35:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00e001c18bde$855ab740$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <002d01c18b4d$b6543880$1d997ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:11:27 -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" > DWS writes: > > > >I have indicated already that I am not willing > > >to preach to the unconvertible, in which category DWS may firmly be > > >placed. This will therefore be my last word on the subject - with > > >apologies to Gordon Rainsford, but there really is a limit to what > flesh > > >and blood can stand. > > > > Oh dear, David, were you losing an argument again? > > No. Just wasting time. > Not really wasted, David. There are no doubt many who, like me, are loath to take a position opposite to one shared by Edgar Kaplan and David Burn. Maybe one, or the other, but not both. EK was one of the chief framers of the Laws, and you are one of the most expert appliers of the Laws. We want to know your interpretations, but understand that you get tired of having to repeat yourself. I suggest that after you have stated your last word on a subject, you give up trying to convert those who will not accept it. Like arguing religion, it's not worth the 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 Mon Dec 24 06:46:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNJjZc04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:45:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBNJjRH04795 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:45:27 +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 fBNJbpB02105 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:37:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010e01c18be6$edf3c780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:18:06 -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" > The only thing left I would ask is whether or not this only > applies to cases where there's a lost potential to gain. You've already > stated you'd apply it to illegal contracts that should go down. What about > opponents biding illegally to 2C; the field is in 2 vulnerable hearts your > way down one and you blank on defense, deftly holding 2C to 3 -- do you > still get your bottom? The field doesn't matter. What matters is how the 2C bid harmed *you*, in your system. If they bid illegally to 2C, and no defense would have given you a better result than where *your side* (not the field) had a chance (not even a likelihood) of playing, then you get that better result in the adjustment. The problem with looking at the scores of other pairs are the L12C2 words "most favorable result that was likely," which gives you the benefit of any doubt as to what contract you would have played absent the infraction. > What if your stupidity caused no damage? Opponents > bid illegally to some contract and you revoke twice. You could > never get a good result in their contract, but is there still the same > "liability for your own mistakes?" > Yes and no. Your score is adjusted according to L12C2, regardless of the revokes, because nothing you could have done would have avoided the damage. But if that adjustment is to a contract in the same denomination, same declarer, your revokes remain in the adjustment unless it appears they might have been related to the level of contract. If there is a different adjustment, then your revokes are irrelevant. For instance, the opponents illegally bid to 3NT, which is cold for nine tricks but you irrationally give up overtricks, -690. The score may be adjusted back to 2NT, but for +/- 240 if it does not appear that the level of contract could have affected the defense. Yes, that can give the OS a top score, but the Laws do not say the OS cannot get a good result from an adjusted score. If the revokes had nothing to do with the infraction, there is no basis for saying they should be annulled. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 06:53:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNJqxc06047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:52:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBNJqlH06011 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:52:48 +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 16IEYS-000NdD-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:45:11 +0000 Message-ID: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:31:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Quango MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the end. Liz, David and I will miss him. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ 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 Mon Dec 24 06:53:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNJr3406053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:53:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBNJqlH06012 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:52:48 +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 16IEYQ-000Nd0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:45:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:14:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 10:30 AM +0000 12/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>Adam Wildavsky writes >> >Suppose I were a committee member faced with making a 12C2 adjustment >>>and you were a director instructing the committee as to the >>>application of the laws. How would you explain the adjustment for the >>>OS? >> >> Of course, the question is whether you want me to be helpful or not. > >I don't understand -- isn't being helpful part of a director's job? Yes. What do you not understand? You have asked if I would make an unhelpful explanation just to be technically accurate. No, probably not, because I try to be helpful rather than pedantic. >> When explaining something I tend to explain it quite widely. Such an >>explanation, if I really felt it needed to include this rare case, would >>no doubt include "and you can give an adjustment that goes via the >>irregularity, if this turns out to be the most unfavourable result that >>was at all probable". > >I wouldn't understand that either. > >Suppose my side makes illegal use of UI to get to a major suit game >depending on three two-way finesses. It's a priori 7-1 against my >getting all three right, yet for once I do guess them all correctly. >How do you adjust and why? I disallow the illegal use, and adjust for the NOs on that basis, presumably to 2S+2 [2S making 4] or whatever. For the Os it depends really what basis there is for the play. If the finesses have to be taken and all work, they will get 2S+2 as well. However, if they are guesses, then I could adjust to 4S-1 legally. In practice this is rarely or never done, possibly because of your argument that we know what would have happened when it has happened. A normal adjustment for the Os would be 2S+1, or 2S=. In fact, having not seen the hand, a normal adjustment for the NOs would be one of these as well. The difference is that an adjustment to 4S-1 is not legal for the NOs. -- 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 Dec 24 07:32:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNKWb012705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:32:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBNKWSH12683 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:32:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-111-6.btinternet.com ([213.122.111.6] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16IFAw-0006tY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:24:50 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:23:49 -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 DWS wrote: > >Suppose my side makes illegal use of UI to get to a major suit game > >depending on three two-way finesses. It's a priori 7-1 against my > >getting all three right, yet for once I do guess them all correctly. > >How do you adjust and why? > > I disallow the illegal use, and adjust for the NOs on that basis, > presumably to 2S+2 [2S making 4] or whatever. > > For the Os it depends really what basis there is for the play. If the > finesses have to be taken and all work, they will get 2S+2 as well. > However, if they are guesses, then I could adjust to 4S-1 legally. In > practice this is rarely or never done, possibly because of your argument > that we know what would have happened when it has happened. I am having some difficulty with this. Do you mean that one could adjust the contract to 4S if that might have been reached via some auction other than the illegal one that took place? Or do you assert that in an auction such as this: West North East South 1S Pass ...3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass where 4S is considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S, and pass is considered a LA, it is legal to adjust the score for the OS to 4S-1 despite the fact that 4S made at the table? 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 Dec 24 08:49:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBNLmwg12926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 08:48:58 +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 fBNLmmH12922 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 08:48:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from svk (31.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.31]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fBNLf6488681 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:41:06 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <008201c18bfa$d5aaa5e0$2882b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Quango Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:41:42 +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 > > Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the > end. > > Liz, David and I will miss him. We are sorry... :(( Sergey, Kate and Liza will miss Quango too :(( -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 11:54:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO0sAP12993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO0s2H12989 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:54:02 +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 AAA15365 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:46:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:33:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >John wrote: > >> right. Now. Do you award 6H+1 to the NOs, or 7H=?. That's all I want >to >> know. cheers john. > >I believe that, since if the NOS had not revoked the score would have >been 7H-1, the award should be 7H making. That is, because the >infraction did not do damage, it is not cancelled, and what followed >from it is the table result (as far as the NOS is concerned). > >I am aware of an argument to the effect that the NOS should be awarded >6H+1, keeping the self-inflicted damage but not suffering the effects of >the infraction. I do not subscribe to it myself, largely because I >consider it impossible that a side which has bid to 7H missing the trump >ace can have committed the infraction of using unauthorised information >(since they patently have not used any information at all). Excluding the sophistry, and taking other examples where the UI clearly was used (appears to have been used, if you must), how do you rule - still (by analogy) 7H= or 6H+1? > But it has >some merit. It is only this point which I am picking over. The opponents scientifically bid to 7H missing the trump Ace and I revoke, I deserve 7H=. I still intensely dislike 7H= for the NOs when the opponents have "cheated". > The notion that the NOS should receive 6H making because >they would not have revoked defending 6H has, as far as I can see, none >at all. I agree. It may not be so clear if the two contracts are very different (eg the other side declaring) > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 11:55:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO0tTa13005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:55:29 +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 fBO0tLH13001 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:55:22 +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 AAA15369 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:47:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:34:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Quango References: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Nanki Poo writes > > Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the >end. > > Liz, David and I will miss him. > Dear David, I am so sorry to hear this. 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 Mon Dec 24 12:14:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO1E1d13031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:14:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBO1DpH13022 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:13:51 +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 16IJZA-0004HQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:28:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c18ba8$462b6460$0502e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000f01c18ba8$462b6460$0502e150@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" >> How do you test whether B is the result of A? Surely, >> you find out whether we B would have happened in the >> absence of A, and if it would not have happened, then >> B is the result of A. >> >> If the Os had not bid the Grand slam, then a score of >> -2210 *could not* have happened. Therefore -2210 is >> as a result of them bidding a Grand Slam: it is >> consequent on them bidding the Grand slam. >> >> Ok, there may be another cause: there is in the >> example, the revoke. But that does not alter the fact >> that bidding the Grand slam caused the Grand slam >> to be made, at least in part. >+=+ It is all very well for you to quote your personal >opinion, but David, can you cite an authority for this >view? In my experience authorities would take the >view that the number of tricks made here is solely a >consequence of the revoke and without the revoke >there is no damage arising from illegal arrival in the >contract. I have been trying to make a few points in this thread. I have no particular opinion, have no certain stance, but believe BLML should be a method of discussion. The matters discussed here need explaining and the fact that opinions are given without authorities does not seem to me to invalidate reasoned discussion. -- 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 Dec 24 12:14:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO1E6u13032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:14:06 +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-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 fBO1DtH13027 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:13:55 +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 16IJZI-0004HP-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:06:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:29:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I find that there have been a number of posts in this thread that suggests some members of BLML [more than usual] are deciding that their views should be paramount, and everyone else should bow down to them. It is my continued belief that BLML is for discussion. Sadly, this particular thread is too difficult for me. I feel that while there are points to be made, if I try to make them it will be seen [as an American friend put it] as an ego-trip on my part. I can never understand why some people here seem to enjoy upsetting others. I do not believe that getting people to understand the "Calculation of Damage" is best done by bullying them. What a pity that reasoned discussion is not permitted by a minority of posters. -- 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 Dec 24 12:34:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO1YZs13055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:34:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBO1YRH13051 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:34:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA97740 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:26:44 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01C18C19.F1CD01E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:25:59 -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 DWS wrote: I find that there have been a number of posts in this thread that suggests some members of BLML [more than usual] are deciding that their views should be paramount, and everyone else should bow down to them. It is my continued belief that BLML is for discussion. Sadly, this particular thread is too difficult for me. I feel that while there are points to be made, if I try to make them it will be seen [as an American friend put it] as an ego-trip on my part. I can never understand why some people here seem to enjoy upsetting others. I do not believe that getting people to understand the "Calculation of Damage" is best done by bullying them. What a pity that reasoned discussion is not permitted by a minority of posters. I find this thread very interesting. Let's not drop it until we reach a consensus or at least agree that it go to Grattan's notebook. It is frustrating to find so many good questions end up with at least two good but different answers but no real guidance as to the correct answer. Let's keep talking. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 13:25:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO2OZm13088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:24:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO2ORH13084 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:24:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-29-205.btinternet.com ([213.122.29.205] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16IKfZ-0001OJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:16:50 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c18c20$e9b3c780$cd1d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> <000b01c18ba1$3b8bd5a0$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> <003101c18baf$10dc5f60$0502e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:15:48 -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: > "Truth will come to light; murder cannot be > hid long" M of V. > + + + + + + + + + + "His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search". M of V > +=+ It is strange, is it not, that from this common > belief we infer different conclusions, you and I? +=+ Do we? My conclusion may roughly be summarised thus: if an infraction has done no damage, then there are no legal grounds for score adjustment (this is especially so where L12C2 is the only recourse available in a particular jurisdiction). However, there appears to exist a directive from the WBF that when a NOS is held to have damaged itself solely by its own actions and not in any way been damaged as a consequence of an infraction, then while the NOS retains its table score, the OS may have its score adjusted in such a way that it does not necessarily profit either from the consequent or the subsequent damage suffered by the NOS. This is the policy that I believe should be followed in England. If we ought to be doing something else, then it would be helpful for me to know (a) what and (b) why. 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 Dec 24 13:31:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO2V9f13101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:31:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.pinehurst.net (smtp2.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO2V0H13097 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:31:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-257.connectnc.net [63.160.175.67]) by smtp2.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13108; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:23:55 -0500 Message-ID: <004501c18c21$21cd5a00$43afa03f@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: , "Nanki Poo" References: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Quango Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:17:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How sad to hear of the departure of Quango. We will all miss hearing from him. Condolences to all :....(( Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nanki Poo" To: Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 1:31 PM Subject: [BLML] Quango > > Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the > end. > > Liz, David and I will miss him. > > -- > Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 13:34:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO2Y6N13113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:34:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO2XvH13109 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:33:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-29-205.btinternet.com ([213.122.29.205] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16IKom-0000QZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:26:21 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c18c22$3e149ec0$cd1d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:25:19 -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 John wrote: > Excluding the sophistry, and taking other examples where the UI clearly > was used (appears to have been used, if you must), how do you rule - > still (by analogy) 7H= or 6H+1? Again, if the NOS was placed in a position to defend 7H with profit (wrt defending 6H), and if it failed to do so entirely through its own folly, then it keeps -2210. One might imagine, for example, that the opening leader has CAKQJx and a diamond void. He underleads the clubs, thinking that if this is a successful defence, he will score 200 for a top (or a win on the board, or whatever); when declarer wins C10 and cashes the next twelve, the defender calls the director and asks for -1430. > It is only this point which I am picking over. The opponents > scientifically bid to 7H missing the trump Ace and I revoke, I deserve > 7H=. I still intensely dislike 7H= for the NOs when the opponents have > "cheated". Oh, I'm none too keen on it myself. But what we like or don't like has not really very much to do with what is the Law. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 17:36:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBO6Zf225548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:35:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBO6ZVH25526 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:35:32 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 71B324873E; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:27:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:27:39 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation 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 8:23 PM +0000 12/23/01, David Burn wrote: >I am having some difficulty with this. Do you mean that one could adjust >the contract to 4S if that might have been reached via some auction >other than the illegal one that took place? Or do you assert that in an >auction such as this: > >West North East South > 1S >Pass ...3S Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >where 4S is considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S, I know this was just a side comment, but please be careful even so. In order to adjust we make no such allegation. The laws require only that the UI demonstrably suggested the action taken over logical alternative actions which would have been less successful. > and pass >is considered a LA, it is legal to adjust the score for the OS to 4S-1 >despite the fact that 4S made at the table? I'll let DWS answer for himself, but as far as I can tell he's saying the latter. If you need an example auction, try one from a NYC tournament: W N E S P P 1S P 3H* Fit showing P 3S* P 4S Break in tempo all pass The whole case can be found at http://www.gnyba.org/appeal2.txt Unlike my hypothetical hand, there's not much to the play on this one. -- 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 Mon Dec 24 21:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOAjHO26676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:45:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOAj8H26654 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:45:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-12-44.btinternet.com ([213.122.12.44] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ISU6-0003d0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:37:31 +0000 Message-ID: <004b01c18c66$da081480$2c0c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:36:20 -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 Adam wrote: > >West North East South > > 1S > >Pass ...3S Pass 4S > >Pass Pass Pass > > > >where 4S is considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S, > > I know this was just a side comment, but please be careful even so. > In order to adjust we make no such allegation. The laws require only > that the UI demonstrably suggested the action taken over logical > alternative actions which would have been less successful. I am not sure what the difference is between what I have said and Adam's rephrasing of it; if 4S is "considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S", then the tempo of 3S has contained UI which has suggested bidding 4S over passing. We occasionally used shorthand, such as "X was based on [a mannerism accompaying] Y" to avoid using long-winded legal phrases such as "Y was accompanied by unauthorised information, which suggested X over logical alternatives." However, as Adam says, this is a side issue. > If you need an example auction, try one from a NYC tournament: > > W N E S > P > P 1S P 3H* Fit showing > P 3S* P 4S Break in tempo > all pass > > The whole case can be found at > > http://www.gnyba.org/appeal2.txt > > Unlike my hypothetical hand, there's not much to the play on this one. Indeed there is not, but I do not see the relevance of this at all, I fear. In the above case, the AC decided that pass was not a logical alternative to 4S. They may have been wrong to arrive at this decision, but that was their judgement, and unless a bridge judgement is clearly hopelessly wrong, it is not really a profitable matter for debate as far as the application of Law is concerned. There was no question of making an adjustment based in part on a call deemed not a logical alternative, which I thought was the point in question. It may have been noticed that DWS and I are not always of one mind, but I confess to sharing his bafflement in this instance - I don't think either of us can give a helpful answer, since we don't understand the question! 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 Dec 24 23:09:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOC8OS08144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:08:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOC88H08120 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:08:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBOC0AH08966 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:00:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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: > Damage is the difference between the score obtained after an event, > and the score that would or might have been obtained without that event. That is a possible interpretation, but hardly the only one. There is nothing in the laws that justifies this interpretation over the equally valid "Damage is the difference between the expected score immediately after an infraction and the expected score immediately before the infraction". (In both cases the proviso "where negative" is needed). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 23:09:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOC8SC08149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:08:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOC8EH08130 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:08:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBOC0QF09033 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:00:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage 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: > How do you test whether B is the result of A? Surely, you find out > whether we B would have happened in the absence of A, and if it would > not have happened, then B is the result of A. This is unmitigated rubbish. Last week I lost money to several Jewish players at the club. This couldn't have happened if the Nazis had won the second world war. My losses were not "a result of the war". The fact that result B requires event A does *not* make B a result of A. Nor does mere proximity in time between A and B increase the causal link. In the example the grand slam bid and the revoke are independent events and it is only the latter that caused damage. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 24 23:27:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOCRLP09537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:27:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOCR8H09521 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:27:08 +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 16IU4j-00038h-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:19:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:29:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >Suppose my side makes illegal use of UI to get to a major suit game >> >depending on three two-way finesses. It's a priori 7-1 against my >> >getting all three right, yet for once I do guess them all correctly. >> >How do you adjust and why? >> >> I disallow the illegal use, and adjust for the NOs on that basis, >> presumably to 2S+2 [2S making 4] or whatever. >> >> For the Os it depends really what basis there is for the play. If >the >> finesses have to be taken and all work, they will get 2S+2 as well. >> However, if they are guesses, then I could adjust to 4S-1 legally. In >> practice this is rarely or never done, possibly because of your >argument >> that we know what would have happened when it has happened. > >I am having some difficulty with this. Do you mean that one could adjust >the contract to 4S if that might have been reached via some auction >other than the illegal one that took place? Or do you assert that in an >auction such as this: > >West North East South > 1S >Pass ...3S Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >where 4S is considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S, and pass >is considered a LA, it is legal to adjust the score for the OS to 4S-1 >despite the fact that 4S made at the table? I think it is legal to adjust that way. -- 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 Dec 25 00:30:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBODTdA20864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:29:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBODTTH20827 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:29:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.81.215] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16IV05-000Jrb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:18:42 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c18c7e$2b89bea0$d751e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:20:17 -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, December 23, 2001 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > I do not subscribe to it myself, largely because I > consider it impossible that a side which has bid to > 7H missing the trump ace can have committed the > infraction of using unauthorised information (since > they patently have not used any information at all). > +=+ There are questions in my mind. They revolve around two elements of Law 16: (i) did the partner, through a hesitation or whatever, make information available to the player? (ii) did the player use information that "could have been suggested" by such information? viz. information was available from partner but the player has misinterpreted it (in which case one could infer that it "could have been" suggested since de facto it was suggested to this player). and (iii), reference Law 73C, has the player carefully avoided taking advantage of any UI from partner? I ask myself whether DB's subscription is not overdue. However, I agree that if an infraction did occur there is no consequent damage from it and 7H= is right for the NOS. On the other hand, in conformance with the ruling of the WBFLC, I would disallow only the benefit of the revoke to the OS and score them 7H-1. If it is adjudged on the other hand that the alleged OS was not in breach of law, as DB's comment would appear to infer, then what basis is there on which to adjust the table score for either side? ~ 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 Dec 25 01:19:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOEJWU00141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOEJGH00093 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:19:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-116.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.116]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 419D937D04; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:11:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006101c18c83$da5fcb40$6ca0f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:02:52 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> How do you test whether B is the result of A? Surely, you find out >> whether we B would have happened in the absence of A, and if it would >> not have happened, then B is the result of A. > Tim: >This is unmitigated rubbish. Dear Tim, Though you are right, isn't it possible to honor Xmas time with some less strong expressions. This is a discussion group and you should not discourage people to add rubbish. What I have decided is to abandon the words subsequent and consequent, because they are too difficult to understand for some of us. Is it possible to follow me when I make a distinction in damage that could easily have been avoided by the behaviour of the non offending side itself and damage that was created at the moment of the infraction from the opponents. I tried this before, when I talked about the TD being told about the infraction who starts to analyse the damage resulting from it. Doing this he finds or finds not damage. If he does it should be adjusted. Called back and being told that the contract was made due to a revoke, he will tell that this damage was not included in his calculation. The same when defenders succeed in not cashing their 2 aces in LHO hand against 6NT (let us assume it to be teams). (interesting case when RHO led OOT accepted by declarer or not but causing a lead penalty; too complicated for the moment). The WBFLC decided to have the score adjusted in case of predictable damage at the moment of the infraction. And we don't care about an extra lost trick most of the time, because we loose extra tricks ourselves quite often. Still predictable, though TD's have to be educated to keep in mind their own standard of play when judging others. One remark/question to David Burn. I can collect 620 in 4H but my opponents bid to 4S which might be based on UI. The TD analyses the board and comes up with at most 500 for me. Damage which should be taken away. But my partner revokes and we only collect 100. Shouldn't the damage be based on the 620 related to the 500/300. Still considering the revoke leading to damage I should have avoided, not getting redress for that part? It should in my opinion, from a point of view that deals with equity. Why should one revoke be penalized in the score and not another? Saying it in another way: the application of the laws should not encourage people to call the TD when they have revoked telling him that the opponents did hesitate before bidding to 4S. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 01:19:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOEJU400138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:19:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOEJGH00092 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:19:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-116.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.116]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 04EFF36F9D; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:11:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005f01c18c83$d9226940$6ca0f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:25:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan: >> +=+ It is strange, is it not, that from this common >> belief we infer different conclusions, you and I? +=+ David B. > >Do we? My conclusion may roughly be summarised thus: if an infraction >has done no damage, then there are no legal grounds for score adjustment >(this is especially so where L12C2 is the only recourse available in a >particular jurisdiction). However, there appears to exist a directive >from the WBF that when a NOS is held to have damaged itself solely by >its own actions and not in any way been damaged as a consequence of an >infraction, then while the NOS retains its table score, the OS may have >its score adjusted in such a way that it does not necessarily profit >either from the consequent or the subsequent damage suffered by the NOS. This is how I remember one of the decisions made by the WBFLC indeed. And the idea that some NBO's do follow this approach makes my bridge life somewhat happier. If not for the way this discussion is going, I feel satisfied to have started one of the longer threads in this group in 2001. Could we ask Herman to add the duration in numbers of contribution to his statistics? ton > >This is the policy that I believe should be followed in England. If we >ought to be doing something else, then it would be helpful for me to >know (a) what and (b) why. > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 01:47:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOEkx204644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:46:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOEkoH04621 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 01:46:51 +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 16IWFu-000BWQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:39:12 +0000 Message-ID: <$wJ1eTBBRzJ8EwUJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:57:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Quango References: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004501c18c21$21cd5a00$43afa03f@mom> In-Reply-To: <004501c18c21$21cd5a00$43afa03f@mom> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy writes >How sad to hear of the departure of Quango. We will all miss hearing from >him. Condolences to all :....(( >From: "Nanki Poo" >> Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the >> end. >> >> Liz, David and I will miss him. Thanks to Nancy and others for their expressions of sympathy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 02:12:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOFCQT09481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 02:12:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOFCHH09461 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 02:12:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-75-120.btinternet.com ([213.122.75.120] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16IWea-0007jV-00; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:04:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c18c8c$2aa12b00$784b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003101c18aa5$3a47b760$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <00fb01c18bda$df272320$c8b501d5@pbncomputer> <002301c18c7e$2b89bea0$d751e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:03:32 -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: > "Vether it's worth going through so much, > to learn so little, as the charity-boy said ven > he got to the end of the alphabet, is a > matter of taste." > [Mr. Weller in 'Pickwick Papers'] > + + + + + + + + + + "It's always best on these occasions to do what the mob do." "But suppose there are two mobs?", suggested Mr Snodgrass. "Shout with the largest", replied Mr Pickwick. [Charles Dickens, 'Pickwick Papers'] > > I do not subscribe to it myself, largely because I > > consider it impossible that a side which has bid to > > 7H missing the trump ace can have committed the > > infraction of using unauthorised information (since > > they patently have not used any information at all). > > > +=+ There are questions in my mind. They revolve > around two elements of Law 16: > (i) did the partner, through a hesitation or > whatever, make information available to the player? > (ii) did the player use information that "could > have been suggested" by such information? > viz. information was available from partner > but the player has misinterpreted it (in which case > one could infer that it "could have been" suggested > since de facto it was suggested to this player). Oh, quite so. In the comparatively simple case of 1s - ...3S, assuming for a moment an over-coarse level of granularity, we reason as follows: The 1S bidder has a minimum hand that would pass any limit raise in spades; but The tempo of 3S suggests a hand worth either 2S or 4S, and though the opener cannot tell which, he assesses the probabilities as equally likely; so It is suggested to the opener that he bids 4S, because (assuming no one doubles him), this will decrease his score from -100 to -200 in the former case, but increase it from +140 to +620 in the latter. Thus, even though there was in the case of a 3S bid worth only 2S no actual transfer of information (of the kind "I have a maximum 3S bid"), the mere knowledge that the responder does not have a 3S bid is sufficient to suggest 4S over the logical alternative of pass; and we adjust the score if 4S turns out successfully (unless the reason that it turns out successfully is a piece of folly by the opponents not caused by the infraction). But in the case of hesitation Blackwood, the partner of the player who signs off slowly has no corresponding odds in his favour. If he bids on and is wrong to do so, he decreases his score from +1430 to -100; if he bids on and is right to do so, the increase is only from +1460 to +2210. Here, the mere knowledge that the person who hesitates has some problem is not sufficient to suggest 7H over the logical alternative of pass; we must examine the circumstances of the particular case before we can say that an illegal transfer of information has (or may have) taken place. > and (iii), reference Law 73C, has the player > carefully avoided taking advantage of any UI from > partner? A player who raises a slow 3S to 4S has conspicuously failed to do so, for the fact that the 3S bidder had some problem is of itself sufficient to suggest a course of action. A player who raises a slow 6H to 7H may or may not have failed to do so. The 6H bidder's problem is either: "all key cards are present, but 13 tricks may not be", or: "all key cards are not present, but I am at a loss to understand some other aspect of the situation". The knowledge that one or other of these conditions obtains is not of itself sufficient to suggest one course of action over another (unless there is some partnership history, or other factor that may lead the player to prefer one of the possible explanations over another). > I ask myself whether DB's subscription is > not overdue. I pay these things by direct debit nowadays. > If it is adjudged > on the other hand that the alleged OS was not in > breach of law, as DB's comment would appear > to infer, then what basis is there on which to > adjust the table score for either side? None, in my opinion. But that is just my opinion, and - contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere - I seek merely to advance it as forcefully and as eloquently as I may, rather than to suggest that it prevail over other opinions. Certainly I do not suggest that, if the WBFLC has made some determination, anyone should act contrary to it simply on the basis of personal belief. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 02:25:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOFPJ512071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 02:25:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOFPAH12043 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 02:25:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-75-120.btinternet.com ([213.122.75.120] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16IWr4-0006eq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:17:31 +0000 Message-ID: <002401c18c8d$f7f090e0$784b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006101c18c83$da5fcb40$6ca0f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:16:27 -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 Ton wrote: > One remark/question to David Burn. > > I can collect 620 in 4H but my opponents bid to 4S which might be based on > UI. The TD analyses the board and comes up with at most 500 for me. Damage > which should be taken away. But my partner revokes and we only collect 100. > Shouldn't the damage be based on the 620 related to the 500/300. Still > considering the revoke leading to damage I should have avoided, not getting > redress for that part? > It should in my opinion, from a point of view that deals with equity. Why > should one revoke be penalized in the score and not another? I don't mind an approach on that basis; I don't consider it inequitable, and my concerns are really only with practical matters. It seems to me simple (and therefore desirable) if one says merely: an infraction which will lead to loss in all cases for the NOS is cancelled, and play that might have followed it is void (just as happens for play following a claim, for example). My simplistic view, as I have outlined before, is that if the 4S bid will always lead to a loss for my side wrt a 4H contract by us, the 4S bid never happened and therefore the defence to it, including the revoke, never took place. That's why the revoke is not penalised in my scenario. This also appears to me more consistent with the Laws as currently written than an approach which seeks to redress what Herman refers to as "combined damage". But if some formula could be created that would allow restoration of equity in cases where absurd bridge has been played by a NOS following any kind of irregularity (at any form of scoring), and if the Laws were amended so that such an approach was clearly sanctioned, I would have no difficulty with 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 Tue Dec 25 05:55:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOIsJM18684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:54:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOIsAH18661 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:54:11 +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 fBOIkW718068 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:46:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:46:08 -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: "David Stevenson" > > I find that there have been a number of posts in this thread that > suggests some members of BLML [more than usual] are deciding that their > views should be paramount, and everyone else should bow down to them. > It is my continued belief that BLML is for discussion. > > Sadly, this particular thread is too difficult for me. I feel that > while there are points to be made, if I try to make them it will be seen > [as an American friend put it] as an ego-trip on my part. > > I can never understand why some people here seem to enjoy upsetting > others. I do not believe that getting people to understand the > "Calculation of Damage" is best done by bullying them. > > What a pity that reasoned discussion is not permitted by a minority of > posters. > Everyone participating in this thread ought to give a look at Kaplan's remarks on the subject in response to Eric Landau, 1973 Bridge World. David Stevenson has published the exchange on his website (good for you, David, since you evidently don't agree with it). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 06:04:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOJ4P520667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:04:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOJ4HH20644 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:04:17 +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 fBOIud719799 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:56:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007901c18cac$ab826e80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006101c18c83$da5fcb40$6ca0f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:52:38 -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: "Ton Kooijman > What I have decided is to abandon the words subsequent and consequent, > because they are too difficult to understand for some of us. > This is an excellent suggestion, as any glance at a dictionary will show. "Subsequent" often has the implication of being a consequence of some event, so it isn't the right word. 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 Dec 25 06:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOJ8bG21442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:08:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBOJ8TH21427 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:08:29 +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 OAA00746 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA20375 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:00:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:00:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112241900.OAA20375@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let me ask about a different case. It may not be obvious at first why it belongs in this same thread, but I think it does. Suppose I make an insufficient bid that may have been conventional. Oops! Now partner is barred, so I stab at 3NT. This turns out to be a matchpoint top or a vulnerable game swing at IMPs. Assuming the conditions for L72B1 do not apply, do you adjust the score? I think the traditional answer would be "no," but please take into account the Code Of Practice. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 06:19:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOJJ6l23187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:19:06 +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 fBOJIwH23168 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 06:18:58 +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 fBOJBK722061 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:11:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a501c18cae$b4ee5180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Re: Calculating Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:08:09 -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 From: "Marvin L. French" Although no one seems to have paid attention to it, my pseudocode had a typo, now fixed. > We need a simple procedure for handling damage claims in bridge. > Like this: > > procedure MARV > begin > if the OS's score benefited from the irregularity then > adjust the OS score per L12C2 > if irrational NOS bridge enabled that benefit then > table result stands for the NOS > exit > else > adjust the NOS score per L12C2 > endif > endif > end > > Instruction 1: if the table contract is adjusted to another level of > the same denomination, with the same declarer, assume an identical > line of play unless there is a reasonable chance that the original > NOS play was adversely > affected by the irregularity (including the change of level). > > Instruction 2: The "most unfavorable result that was at all > probable" for the OS may be one that comes after the irregularity or > just before it, but the "most favorable result that was likely" must > be based on the assumption that the irregularity did not occur. > > Instruction 3: When adjusting scores, assume that the NOS plays > excellent bridge and the OS plays bad bridge. Competing demands on my time may require a vacation from BLML after I return from the Reno regional (sound of cheering). Doesn't mean I'm not interested. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, > San Diego, California > (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 08:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOLRte28985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:27:55 +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 fBOLRjH28980 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.1.197] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16IcVu-000B2Q-00; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:20:02 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c18cc0$faa96720$c501e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> <000b01c18ba1$3b8bd5a0$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> <003101c18baf$10dc5f60$0502e150@dodona> <002c01c18c20$e9b3c780$cd1d7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:18:59 -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 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: Monday, December 24, 2001 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ It is strange, is it not, that from this common > > belief we infer different conclusions, you and I? +=+ > > Do we? My conclusion may roughly be summarised > thus: if an infraction has done no damage, then there > are no legal grounds for score adjustment (this is > especially so where L12C2 is the only recourse > available in a particular jurisdiction). However, there > appears to exist a directive from the WBF that when > a NOS is held to have damaged itself solely by its > own actions and not in any way been damaged as a > consequence of an infraction, then while the NOS > retains its table score, the OS may have its score > adjusted in such a way that it does not necessarily > profit either from the consequent or the subsequent > damage suffered by the NOS. > > This is the policy that I believe should be followed > in England. If we ought to be doing something else, > then it would be helpful for me to know (a) what > and (b) why. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ It may be helpful if we spread the WBF position out on the table for inspection. I begin with the Code of Practice [ Sep 1999 ]: " The award of an assigned adjusted score is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of the redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke." Turning to WBFLC minutes we find the following: " It was agreed that a score adjustment is appropriate if the side is damaged ....... but if the side is not damaged the laws do not allow of score adjustment.The WBF Code of Practice defines 'damage'. " [12 Jan 2000] and " A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. .................. The right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). [30 Aug 98] ********** Taking this altogether it seems that the WBF looks for redress to the NOS for any part of its damage that is a consequence of the infraction, but no redress for such part as is caused by its own irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent to the infraction. For the avoidance of possible doubt there is clarification of this in the later statements. No advantage is to be gained by the OS for any damage whether consequent on the infraction or, unless obtained solely by its own good play, occurring subsequent to the infraction. ~ 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 Dec 25 08:28:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOLRmN28982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:27:48 +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 fBOLRdH28975 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:27:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.1.197] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16IcVq-000B2Q-00; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c18cc0$f891d1c0$c501e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <20011220103404-R01010800-277e15d3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <001801c18977$a5f820a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> <000f01c18ba8$462b6460$0502e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:42:39 -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: Monday, December 24, 2001 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > . > > I have been trying to make a few points in this > thread. I have no particular opinion, have no certain > stance, but believe BLML should be a method of > discussion. The matters discussed here need > explaining and the fact that opinions are given > without authorities does not seem to me to > invalidate reasoned discussion. > +=+ Fair enough. My point, of course, is that in practice a TD must still follow the guidance of authority until this is altered. My concern was to ensure no TD would misunderstand, thinking the subject an open one for individual choice according to personal persuasion. We can debate pro and con but nothing is changed until it is changed. ~ 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 Dec 25 09:47:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBOMko829053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:46:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBOMkgH29049 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:46:42 +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 WAA99775 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:38:57 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:38:11 -0000 Message-ID: <01C18CCB.AAEB94A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:38:10 -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 Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original problems posed (where OS bid 7H using UI missing the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) that we adjust : NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? Happy Christmas, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 10:19:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBONJ7S29078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:19:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBONIxH29074 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:19:00 +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 fBONBKP23468 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:11:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011224180242.00b7c360@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:13:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage In-Reply-To: <000501c18ba0$f8d32560$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:59 AM 12/23/01, David wrote: >My position is that if an infraction deprives the NOS of the potential >to achieve result X where result X is greater than all results >obtainable following the infraction, then - provided that result X is >"likely" - the score for the NOS is adjusted per L12C2 to result X. > >That is, if the infraction leads to the NOS defending 5H doubled instead >of making 4S, and if 5H doubled cannot go more than three down >non-vulnerable while 4S is cold, then the NOS get +620. > >But if an infraction creates the potential for the NOS to achieve result >Y, where result Y is greater than all results obtainable following the >infraction, then - provided the failure to achieve result Y was through >folly on the NOS's part unrelated to the infraction - the score for the >NOS is their table score. > >That is, if the infraction leads to the NOS defending 5H doubled instead >of making 4S, and if 5H doubled should go for 800 if the defenders do >not revoke, then when the defenders do revoke, their score remains at >+300. > >Now, this means that if in the first scenario, the defenders revoke and >get 100 instead of 500, their score is still adjusted to 620 - they pay, >in effect, no penalty for having revoked. There is an argument to the >effect that their score should be adjusted according to a formula which >says: the infraction robbed them of 120 aggregate points, while the >revoke cost them 400 aggregate points, so we somehow restore to them the >120 but not the 400. I don't object to this, but I don't really see the >need for it, nor am I sure how it would operate in practice. > >In the second scenario, however, the defenders do pay for having >revoked. Is this fair? My view is that in the first case, the infraction >has done damage (by reducing the NOS's potential from 620 to 500); that >damage must be redressed; and the only practical way to do this is to >say in effect that the play following the damage is cancelled because >the 5H bid is disallowed - the contract at this table never was 5H >doubled, so the defence to it never happened. In the second case, the >infraction has done no damage - on the contrary, it has done good to the >NOS; so there is nothing to redress and no reason to cancel the bid of >5H and the events subsequent thereto. If those events included a revoke, >the penalty for that revoke is accordingly applied - at this table, the >contract was 5H doubled. > >There is an argument to the effect that once the defenders get a worse >score than they ought to have done defending 5H doubled, the infraction >has then done damage. This is one of the clearest and most striking >examples of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" that I >have encountered, yet you will find that it is persisted in. I don't think this line of reasoning gets us anywhere. If we grant that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to ascribe the damage to the infraction rather than to the revoke, which is certainly reasonable, it must be the same fallacy to ascribe the damage in some other situation to the infraction rather than to the failure to execute the double trump squeeze. If it were as simple as post hoc ergo propter hoc, then the NOS shouldn't be entitled to redress whenever they could have done better subsequent to the infraction than prior to it, and I don't think David or anyone else is arguing for that. >If a non-absurd defence would have allowed you to hold 2C to eight >tricks, thus scoring a top for -90 instead of a bottom for -110, then >the infraction has done no damage, and the second of my scenarios above >should be followed. The definition of "non-absurd" varies from >jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And from individual TD to individual TD. And from AC to AC. And from Tuesday to Wednesday. Which is why some of us would like to be rid of the Kaplan doctrine altogether. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 11:56:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBP0tRE06586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 11:55:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBP0tEH06542 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 11:55:17 +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 16Ifkd-000JIJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:47:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 23:02:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> I find that there have been a number of posts in this thread that >> suggests some members of BLML [more than usual] are deciding that their >> views should be paramount, and everyone else should bow down to them. >> It is my continued belief that BLML is for discussion. >> >> Sadly, this particular thread is too difficult for me. I feel that >> while there are points to be made, if I try to make them it will be seen >> [as an American friend put it] as an ego-trip on my part. >> >> I can never understand why some people here seem to enjoy upsetting >> others. I do not believe that getting people to understand the >> "Calculation of Damage" is best done by bullying them. >> >> What a pity that reasoned discussion is not permitted by a minority of >> posters. >Everyone participating in this thread ought to give a look at Kaplan's remarks >on the subject in response to Eric Landau, 1973 Bridge World. David Stevenson >has published the exchange on his website (good for you, David, since you >evidently don't agree with it). Christ almighty, how many bloody mind-readers are there on this list? I have not given my views on the subject, nor am I going to. Will people please stop telling me they disagree with my views! Sure, I asked a couple of questions in an attempt to further discussion, and got stamped on. Great. Wonderful. What is this list for? -- 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 Dec 25 12:02:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBP11wx07714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:01:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBP11mH07686 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:01:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-189-220.btinternet.com ([213.122.189.220] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Ifr0-0003uP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:54:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c18cde$7dd7af40$dcbd7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011224180242.00b7c360@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:52:51 -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 Eric wrote: > I don't think this line of reasoning gets us anywhere. If we grant > that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to ascribe the damage to > the infraction rather than to the revoke, which is certainly > reasonable, it must be the same fallacy to ascribe the damage in some > other situation to the infraction rather than to the failure to execute > the double trump squeeze. To an extent, this is so. However, my view is that before leaving the NOS with their table score, the potential for the NOS to realise a better score following the infraction than they were in a position to realise before it must be significant. In other words, there must be some obvious set of actions for them to take which would convert their plus position into figures on the scoresheet, and they must obviously have failed to take those actions. I do indeed hold the view that the better a player or a partnership happens to be, the greater the onus on them to protect themselves from damage. That is, I could imagine ruling that Mrs Guggenheim and Futile Willy should have an adjusted score, because the set of actions they needed to take in order to realise the potential for gain created by the infraction was beyond their powers; while Meckwell would in exactly the same circumstances keep their table score, because their failure to take the necessary actions was for them an egregious error. > If it were as simple as post hoc ergo > propter hoc, then the NOS shouldn't be entitled to redress whenever > they could have done better subsequent to the infraction than prior to > it, and I don't think David or anyone else is arguing for that. I am not - vide supra for what I am arguing instead. > >If a non-absurd defence would have allowed you to hold 2C to eight > >tricks, thus scoring a top for -90 instead of a bottom for -110, then > >the infraction has done no damage, and the second of my scenarios above > >should be followed. The definition of "non-absurd" varies from > >jurisdiction to jurisdiction. > > And from individual TD to individual TD. And from AC to AC. And from > Tuesday to Wednesday. Which is why some of us would like to be rid of > the Kaplan doctrine altogether. With this view I have much sympathy. I have many times argued for a set of Laws that can be applied consistently by each and every official to each and every set of circumstances. My personal belief is that this consistency is more important to players and officials in general, and for the health of the game, than considerations of equity. But I am aware that this is not a universally held belief, and that those who rule the game are tending to move in the direction of an equity-based rather than a "fixed penalty" system. Whereas I myself do not applaud this tendency, it creates a framework within which I (and all of us) have to operate, and my contributions to this discussion have been no more than suggestions as to how we might best do so. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 15:44:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBP4gmj20913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:42:48 +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 fBP4gAH20788 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:42:10 +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 fBP4YV705473 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:34:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00c401c18cfd$2a34c340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112241900.OAA20375@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:26:12 -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: "Steve Willner" > Let me ask about a different case. It may not be obvious at first why > it belongs in this same thread, but I think it does. > > Suppose I make an insufficient bid that may have been conventional. > Oops! Now partner is barred, so I stab at 3NT. This turns out to be a > matchpoint top or a vulnerable game swing at IMPs. Assuming the > conditions for L72B1 do not apply, do you adjust the score? > > I think the traditional answer would be "no," but please take into > account the Code Of Practice. For those few (new subscribers, perhaps) who are unfamiliar with the WBF's Code of Practice for Appeal Committees, it was created by an *ad hoc* committee in Lausanne, September 1999. While it is an excellent document in many respects, several of its provisions intrude into the area of law-making and law interpretation. The CoP is included on David Stevenson's website, www.blakjak.demon.co.uk While it has been widely adopted elsewhere, it does not apply in ACBL-sponsored events. Nevertheless, I wish Steve had been more clear about what he is alluding to in the CoP. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 15:53:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBP4qnp22804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:52:49 +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 fBP4qSH22750 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:52:28 +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 fBP4ic706831 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:44:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C18CCB.AAEB94A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:38:41 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original problems posed > (where OS bid 7H using UI missing the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) > that we adjust : NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? > No! 7H wasn't defeated, and you can't change the play of the cards to punish the OS unless the play was affected by the infraction. Change the contract instead. 7H=for the NOS, yes. The WBFLC has made that clear. If your question is for those in CoP-land, perhaps you should say that. I suppose it makes a difference. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 25 21:10:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPA94K16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:09:04 +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-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 fBPA8lH16799 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:08:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.73] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16IoOJ-000FFz-00; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:01:00 +0000 Message-ID: <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:38:50 -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: Monday, December 24, 2001 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > Christ almighty, how many bloody mind-readers > are there on this list? > > I have not given my views on the subject, nor > am I going to. > > Will people please stop telling me they disagree > with my views! > > Sure, I asked a couple of questions in an > attempt to further discussion, and got stamped > on. Great. Wonderful. > > What is this list for? > +=+ Come on David, you are old enough to have outgrown petulance. You set yourself up to be a counsellor in bridge matters and counselling only succeeds through patience and composure. ~ 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 Dec 25 21:10:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPA94f16838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:09:04 +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-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 fBPA8iH16786 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:08:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.73] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16IoOH-000FFz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:00:58 +0000 Message-ID: <005201c18d2b$4721eb80$4906e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C18CCB.AAEB94A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:59:39 -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: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > > Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original > > problems posed (where OS bid 7H using UI missing > > the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) that we adjust : > > NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? > > To which Marvin responded: > No! 7H wasn't defeated, and you can't change the > play of the cards to punish the OS unless the play > was affected by the infraction. Change the contract > instead. > +=+ I do not believe this statement to be correct. First, in assigning an adjusted score you can 'change' anything to give effect to the law. Under 12C2 you award to the OS the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. There is no limitation by which you may not award a result that would be obtained through the infraction. (In fact you are changing nothing other than the score; the assignment is an alteration of the side's score not a modification of the events that have occurred.) Second, where 12C3 is available powers exist to assign any adjusted score that is considered more equitable than the product of 12C2. ~ 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 Dec 25 21:10:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPA96A16840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBPA8nH16803 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:08:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.73] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16IoOM-000FFz-00; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:01:02 +0000 Message-ID: <005401c18d2b$4985cc20$4906e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <200112241900.OAA20375@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00c401c18cfd$2a34c340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:39:53 -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: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > > For those few (new subscribers, perhaps) who are unfamiliar with > the WBF's Code of Practice for Appeal Committees, it was created > by an *ad hoc* committee in Lausanne, September 1999. While it > is an excellent document in many respects, several of its provisions > intrude into the area of law-making and law interpretation. The CoP > is included on David Stevenson's website, > www.blakjak.demon.co.uk > +=+ One should add that the 'ad hoc' committee was convened by the President of the WBF and its product, the Code of Practice, was received, approved and adopted by the Executive Council of the WBF. The Executive Council is the parent body of the WBFLC. ~ 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 Dec 26 04:27:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPHQAN10228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 04:26:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBPHQ1H10224 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 04:26:02 +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 fBPHIMB06570 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:18:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c18d67$797f0540$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200112241900.OAA20375@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00c401c18cfd$2a34c340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005401c18d2b$4985cc20$4906e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:13:23 -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" > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > > > For those few (new subscribers, perhaps) who are unfamiliar with > > the WBF's Code of Practice for Appeal Committees, it was created > > by an *ad hoc* committee in Lausanne, September 1999. While it > > is an excellent document in many respects, several of its > provisions > > intrude into the area of law-making and law interpretation. The > CoP > > is included on David Stevenson's website, > > www.blakjak.demon.co.uk > > > +=+ One should add that the 'ad hoc' committee was convened > by the President of the WBF and its product, the Code of Practice, > was received, approved and adopted by the Executive Council of > the WBF. The Executive Council is the parent body of the WBFLC. > One should add that it does not carry the force of law throughout the WBF, since the WBF Laws Commission refused to incorporate its law-making provision into the Laws, as the committee recommended. The Law interpretations within the document are also applicable only to events coming under the effectivity scope of the CoP, which does not include ACBL-sponsored games. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 26 06:47:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPJkjW20953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 06:46:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 fBPJkWH20922 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 06:46:32 +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 16IxPU-000HeU-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:20:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@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 >----- Original Message ----- >> Christ almighty, how many bloody mind-readers >> are there on this list? >> >> I have not given my views on the subject, nor >> am I going to. >> >> Will people please stop telling me they disagree >> with my views! >> >> Sure, I asked a couple of questions in an >> attempt to further discussion, and got stamped >> on. Great. Wonderful. >> >> What is this list for? >+=+ Come on David, you are old enough to have >outgrown petulance. You set yourself up to be a >counsellor in bridge matters and counselling only >succeeds through patience and composure. I think it obvious that I have *not* outgrown petulance. As for patience and composure, I try, but I have never reached the plateau where I can accept things that frustrate without reaction. No doubt it will be better if I do. But this list can be so good at explaining things to people, and this dreadful thread is full of posing people showing how wonderful they are and telling everyone else they are wrong without bothering to explain why. This is an important subject, and I doubt there are many people who understand it now, because of the refusal of the people who understand the subject to explain carefully, rationally and helpfully why others are wrong. Comments such as "You should not be posting to this list if that is your view", "It is not worth arguing if so-and-so disagrees", "What right have you to say that without an authority?" and "We should not talk about this any further because two authorities agree" [all paraphrased] are as much use to the average person on this list as ice- makers at the North Pole. I realise that some people want nothing more than to impress each other with their erudition and verbiage, and why should they not? However, I do ask them not to dismiss people with disdain who merely want to find out what this subject is about, and discuss it reasonably. -- 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 Dec 26 06:47:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPJkjE20952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 06:46:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 fBPJkWH20921 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 06:46:32 +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 16IxPU-000HeT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:38:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 14:16:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112241900.OAA20375@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00c401c18cfd$2a34c340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00c401c18cfd$2a34c340$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: "Steve Willner" >> Let me ask about a different case. It may not be obvious at first why >> it belongs in this same thread, but I think it does. >> >> Suppose I make an insufficient bid that may have been conventional. >> Oops! Now partner is barred, so I stab at 3NT. This turns out to be a >> matchpoint top or a vulnerable game swing at IMPs. Assuming the >> conditions for L72B1 do not apply, do you adjust the score? >> >> I think the traditional answer would be "no," but please take into >> account the Code Of Practice. >For those few (new subscribers, perhaps) who are unfamiliar with the WBF's Code >of Practice for Appeal Committees, it was created by an *ad hoc* committee in >Lausanne, September 1999. While it is an excellent document in many respects, >several of its provisions intrude into the area of law-making and law >interpretation. The CoP is included on David Stevenson's website, >www.blakjak.demon.co.uk The actual URL is http://blakjak.com/wbf_cop.htm >While it has been widely adopted elsewhere, it does not apply in ACBL-sponsored >events. > >Nevertheless, I wish Steve had been more clear about what he is alluding to in >the CoP. -- 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 Dec 26 08:09:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPL8fo04766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:08:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBPL8WH04744 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:08:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 54EF198242; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 16:00:52 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002201c187fa$d9be84c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002201c187fa$d9be84c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 16:00:39 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) 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 11:32 AM -0800 12/18/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >At 3:57 PM -0500 12/17/01, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is >>implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric >>Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated >>certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they >>were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. >WTP? Can't you just use L72B1 for the OS (L12C2 applies) and tell the NOS >they weren't damaged, result stands? L72B1 doesn't say that damage has to >result for an adjustment to be in order, only that an irregularity "would >be likely to damage" and it "gained an advantage." "Gained an advantage" >is not synonymous with "damaged"; one can exist without the other. Bravo, Marvin! I think this is what I was looking for, the law that implements the Kaplan doctrine. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Kaplan doctrine suggests that if the NOS had a chance to achieve a favorable score after an infraction and lost that chance due to their own egregious error then the NOS will keep their score while the score for the OS will be adjusted. I would make a small change to Marv's explanation. I would not tell the NOS that they were not damaged -- they'll certainly feel damaged! Rather I'd say that they were damaged through their own actions, rather than through the infraction. -- 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 Wed Dec 26 10:19:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPNIHI28758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:18:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBPNI6H28726 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:18:07 +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 XAA20413 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:10:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:08:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C22FABB.50400@village.uunet.be> <003c01c18aa7$b94bab00$57ad01d5@pbncomputer> <001d01c18b31$dfeb9060$ac1de150@dodona> <000b01c18ba1$3b8bd5a0$c3a57ad5@pbncomputer> <003101c18baf$10dc5f60$0502e150@dodona> <002c01c18c20$e9b3c780$cd1d7ad5@pbncomputer> <001e01c18cc0$faa96720$c501e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001e01c18cc0$faa96720$c501e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001e01c18cc0$faa96720$c501e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Vether it's worth going through so much, >to learn so little, as the charity-boy said ven >he got to the end of the alphabet, is a >matter of taste." > [Mr. Weller in 'Pickwick Papers'] >+ + + + + + + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "Bridge Laws" >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 2:15 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > >> Grattan wrote: >> >> > +=+ It is strange, is it not, that from this common >> > belief we infer different conclusions, you and I? +=+ >> >> Do we? My conclusion may roughly be summarised >> thus: if an infraction has done no damage, then there >> are no legal grounds for score adjustment (this is >> especially so where L12C2 is the only recourse >> available in a particular jurisdiction). However, there >> appears to exist a directive from the WBF that when >> a NOS is held to have damaged itself solely by its >> own actions and not in any way been damaged as a >> consequence of an infraction, then while the NOS >> retains its table score, the OS may have its score >> adjusted in such a way that it does not necessarily >> profit either from the consequent or the subsequent >> damage suffered by the NOS. >> >> This is the policy that I believe should be followed >> in England. If we ought to be doing something else, >> then it would be helpful for me to know (a) what >> and (b) why. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ It may be helpful if we spread the WBF position >out on the table for inspection. > I begin with the Code of Practice [ Sep 1999 ]: > " The award of an assigned adjusted score is >appropriate when a violation of law causes damage >to an innocent side (although the extent of the >redress to this side may be affected, see below, if >it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, >wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction). >Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, >an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable >than would have been the expectation in the instant >prior to the infraction. > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused >its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action >it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such >part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending >side, however, should be awarded the score that it >would have been allotted as the normal consequence >of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side >subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score >but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as >before without regard to the revoke." > > Turning to WBFLC minutes we find the following: > " It was agreed that a score adjustment is >appropriate if the side is damaged ....... but if the >side is not damaged the laws do not allow of score >adjustment.The WBF Code of Practice defines >'damage'. " [12 Jan 2000] > > and > > " A change was made by the Committee in the >interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to >be applied so that advantage gained by an offender >(see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the >infraction and not obtained solely by the good play >of the offenders, shall be construed as an >advantage in the table score whether consequent >or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a >non-offending side shall be a consequence of the >infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted >score. .................. The right to redress for a >non-offending side is not annulled by a normal >error or misjudgement in the subsequent action >but only by an action that is evidently irrational, >wild or gambling (which would include the type >of action commonly referred to as a 'double >shot'). [30 Aug 98] > ********** > >Taking this altogether it seems that the WBF >looks for redress to the NOS for any part of its >damage that is a consequence of the infraction, >but no redress for such part as is caused by its >own irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent >to the infraction. For the avoidance of possible >doubt there is clarification of this in the later >statements. No advantage is to be gained by >the OS for any damage whether consequent on >the infraction or, unless obtained solely by its >own good play, occurring subsequent to the >infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, I'm just a poor boy wot dusn't unnerstand English. Can I pick an example and ask you to say simply if you think my action accords with WBF jurisprudence or whether, in actuality, I'm completely out of my tree. Lets say I have a routine 4S (+420) and the opponents cheat their way to 5 hearts. Lets assume I can get this off 500 on a good day, easy, result stands, ... but today I only get 300 - an error of no great magnitude is involved. In this case I give both sides +420. OK, so far. Let's now say it is a revoke which holds me to +300. The OS get -(+420), that bit's easy and the NOs should get 1) The score for +420, less the difference between 500 and 300? - which on a bad day could be negative matchpoints ... or "Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. .........." 2) The score for +300? I suspect the answer is number 2. But I believe we've opened a can of worms. The question then becomes: Because we are defending 5Hx and not declaring 4S are we not consequent to the infraction in an absolute sense? And may it not well be different if we are defending 6H or 7H holding the trump Ace and we revoke, where the OS cheated to get to 7H? I find the dividing line is not at all clear - and I assure you I'm trying my best here. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 26 10:29:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBPNT0V00539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:29:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBPNSpH00509 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:28:51 +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 XAA20440 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:21:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:19:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <01C18CCB.AAEB94A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$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 <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > >> Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original problems posed >> (where OS bid 7H using UI missing the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) >> that we adjust : NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? >> >No! 7H wasn't defeated, and you can't change the play of the cards to punish the >OS unless the play was affected by the infraction. Change the contract instead. > >7H=for the NOS, yes. The WBFLC has made that clear. > >If your question is for those in CoP-land, perhaps you should say that. I >suppose it makes a difference. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California It's odd. I have no problem with what to do with the offending side. They infracted, had it been a good grand that makes we would adjust to 6H+1, so we do the same here. 6H+1 for the OS is easy to rule. The problem for me always has been interpreting the score adjustment for the NOs. I want to give them 6H+1 but I'm being told I'm not allowed to and must give them 7H=, despite the fact that we assume (for the purpose of ruling ofr the OS) we *should* have been defending 6H, and we *would* still have revoked. cheers john > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Dec 26 11:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBQ0LLI07287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:21:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie ([194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBQ0LBH07261 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:21:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA47206 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:13:23 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:12:37 -0000 Message-ID: <01C18DA2.0655F700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:12:36 -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 I asked: >> Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original problems posed >> (where OS bid 7H using UI missing the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) >> that we adjust : NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: It's odd. I have no problem with what to do with the offending side. They infracted, had it been a good grand that makes we would adjust to 6H+1, so we do the same here. 6H+1 for the OS is easy to rule. But not 7H-1? 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 Dec 26 11:23:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBQ0NjP07773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:23:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie ([194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBQ0NaH07747 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:23:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA47321 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:15:51 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:15:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01C18DA2.5E6FFB20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:15:04 -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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: Can I pick an example and ask you to say simply if you think my action accords with WBF jurisprudence or whether, in actuality, I'm completely out of my tree. Lets say I have a routine 4S (+420) and the opponents cheat their way to 5 hearts. Lets assume I can get this off 500 on a good day, easy, result stands, ... but today I only get 300 - an error of no great magnitude is involved. In this case I give both sides +420. OK, so far. Let's now say it is a revoke which holds me to +300. The OS get -(+420), that bit's easy .... is it? why not -500 for OS? 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 Dec 26 11:54:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBQ0sKb12600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:54:20 +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 fBQ0sBH12575 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:54:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.74.78] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16J2DD-0006d2-00; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:46:28 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c18da6$fc3f9f00$4e4ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:47:13 -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: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > > I think it obvious that I have *not* outgrown petulance. As for > patience and composure, I try, but I have never reached the > plateau where I can accept things that frustrate without reaction. > No doubt it will be better if I do. > > But this list can be so good at explaining things to people, and > this dreadful thread is full of posing people showing how wonderful > they are and telling everyone else they are wrong without bothering > to explain why. > > This is an important subject, and I doubt there are many people > who understand it now, because of the refusal of the people who > understand the subject to explain carefully, rationally and helpfully > why others are wrong. Comments such as "You should not be > posting to this list if that is your view", "It is not worth arguing if > so-and-so disagrees", "What right have you to say that without an > authority?" and "We should not talk about this any further because > two authorities agree" [all paraphrased] are as much use to the > average person on this list as ice- makers at the North Pole. > > I realise that some people want nothing more than to impress > each other with their erudition and verbiage, and why should > they not? However, I do ask them not to dismiss people with > disdain who merely want to find out what this subject is about, > and discuss it reasonably. > +=+ Dear David, All this I understand. However, if you are so sensitive to contrary argument and questions raised about what you say that you allege unworthy motives for it and explode into anger and aggression, you simply lose control. I have had the same problem on occasion; just now I am reading Marvin and wondering whether it is even worth pointing out to him that the WBFLC is subservient to the WBF Executive Council and its directions. But of course, the reason not to let a Marvin misconception go unchallenged has nothing to do with helping Marvin to understand and everything to do with the area of readership that is seeking to absorb what we say here, for whom it is important to distinguish our opinions from the wisdom (?) of our corporate masters by which our actions are governed. There is another aspect of the scene that also should be recognized; the ethos of the WBF as presently led is a desire to persuade, not to impose, so that few things are handed down as written on tablets of stone; this is particularly the case with the CoP - the WBF has taken up a position on its subjects, desires that affiliated bodies will follow its example on them, but has left it to them to do so if they will of their own free will. So much of what has been written in this thread on the actual implementation of the laws has dealt with a subject where the law lays down its objects but NBOs are not shackled to a single view of the 'how', so that often "you are right and he is right, and all is right as right can be". ~ 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 Dec 27 02:27:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBQFQ3x04428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:26:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBQFPrH04406 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:25:54 +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 16JFok-000P2w-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:18:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 01:27:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@dodona> <001301c18da6$fc3f9f00$4e4ae150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001301c18da6$fc3f9f00$4e4ae150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > All this I understand. However, if you are so sensitive to >contrary argument and questions raised about what you say >that you allege unworthy motives for it and explode into anger >and aggression, you simply lose control. No Grattan, it is the *lack* of contrary argument that is the problem. I am pleading *for* contrary argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 27 04:28:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBQHRD826950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 04:27:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBQHR2H26925 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 04:27:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.152.156] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16JHi3-000Mz1-00; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:19:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:28:13 -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; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:07:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from lsanca1-ar20-4-60-036-147.elnk.dsl.gtei.net ([4.60.36.147] helo=jonbriss) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16JNxK-00018c-00; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:59:30 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> Reply-To: "Jon Brissman" From: "Jon Brissman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:59:06 -0800 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 Don Oakie wrote an in-depth article for the ACBL Bulletin in the 1970s that was very critical of psyches. In response, a correspondent (whose identity I do not recall) wrote this to Don in a letter to the editor of the Bulletin: Thank you for your clever Clarification endeavor. It's all right to psyche As much as you like As long as you like to psyche never. ............. Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to underlying partnership agreements. Would it include a 2S psyche after the auction has gone P - P - 2H - X if the opener must bid 2NT to show spade support? Jon Brissman > +=+ This is an extract from the minutes of the English > Bridge Union's Laws & Ethics Committee: > # > "The L&E considered a number of psyche reports > which provided examples of psychic action which > appeared to be made less dangerous by virtue of > the other agreements adopted by the pairs > concerned. EBU practices in relation to psyches > concentrate for the most part on the action taken > by the partner of the player who psyches. It is, > however, arguable that the psyche itself, in a > position where the partnership's agreements > reduce the danger, infringes the opponents' rights > to full disclosure because the psyching side has > knowledge which the opponents lack, that the call > is more likely to be psychic than in other positions > where the danger is not so reduced. This applies > even when there is no question of the psyche > being fielded." > # > I had left the meeting before this discussion took > place, but the subject touches on one of my > occasional themes: that it is the psychic call that > is illegal if it is based on a partnership understanding > that has not been disclosed beforehand. Here, of > course, the danger-reducing agreement is no doubt > disclosed - but if it is recognized by the partnership > that psychic action may lean upon the agreement > my opinion is that such understanding should also > be disclosed, not left to opponents to work out. > > The EBU's regulations say: 'Systemic psyching of > any kind is not permitted. You may not use any > convention to control a psyche.' I do wonder > whether this is sufficient if it is decided that there > are abuses that should be controlled, or whether in > that event an additional statement is required. The > area is a tricky one since the agreements that > protect the psyches may not all be conventional; > there would need to be a decision whether it was > desired to require better disclosure or to prevent > such arrangements. In the latter case a careful > route must be searched out - this could perhaps > be via refusal of disclosure facilities (see Law 40B). > For me at least, interesting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 27 16:27:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBR5QWn14134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 16:26:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBR5QNH14104 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 16:26:24 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 6374B48808; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:18:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:17:56 -0500 To: Jon Brissman From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. 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 3:59 PM -0800 12/26/01, Jon Brissman wrote: >Don Oakie wrote an in-depth article for the ACBL Bulletin in the >1970s that was very critical of psyches. In response, a >correspondent (whose identity I do not recall) wrote this to Don in >a letter to the editor of the Bulletin: It's been posted here several times before, but it's still pertinent -- thanks for bringing it up! For the record, an article on psyches, written by Don Oakie and published early in 1978, resulted in some confusion, so the ACBL Bulletin followed up with a discussion of the topic in a Henry Francis interview with Oakie. The best response to that appeared in a subsequent Bulletin's "Letters to the Editor" section: Thanks for the Bulletin's clever Clarification endeavor; "It's legal to psyche As much as you like, So long as you like to psyche NEVER." - Edgar Kaplan, New York City Yes, Edgar was a poet as well -- it seems scarcely fair! -- 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 Fri Dec 28 00:01:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRD0MI09470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:00:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBRD0DH09446 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:00:14 +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 NAA20023; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:52:00 +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 NAA18519; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:52:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011227134652.00a9f870@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:54:18 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:54 21/12/2001 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Let me tell you a story of timing. I was playing in a knockout rubber >bridge game with a time limit. No-one at the table would dream of >sitting there and doing nothing deliberately to waste time. > > I reached 4S and discovered that there were 11 easy tricks, enough to >win the match. Unfortunately, there seemed to me to be just time to >start another hand - and the match was reasonably close. > > So, I drew trumps, and led a loser from dummy, discarding a winner on >it, reducing myself to ten tricks. LHO was surprised to put it mildly. >He was so surprised that he stopped and thought for about three minutes, >trying to work out what I was doing. As a result of his thinking, we >were just out of time to start another hand so we won. > > Any problems with this? AG : L74B4, perhaps. Let me come out of the woods. I was the declarer. We won this match, against strong opposition, by the incredible score of 65-3. We related the match in detail _inter pocula_ to other present teams, and when I came to the this hand, several voices raised to say it was unnnecessarily unpleasant to play this way, and somebody bet that the Rules had something against it. I'm happy to read that enlightened TDs tell him he's wrong. Best regards, and best wishes for 2002. You Europeans, don't forget to learn counting. 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 Dec 28 03:00:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRFxGV29977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:59:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBRFx8H29961 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:59:08 +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 KAA04769 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12824 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:51:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112271551.KAA12824@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > occasional themes: that it is the psychic call that > is illegal if it is based on a partnership understanding > that has not been disclosed beforehand. I wish we could find a way to persuade Grattan that "beforehand" should really be "in accordance with the SO regulations." > that event an additional statement is required. The > area is a tricky one since the agreements that > protect the psyches may not all be conventional; It is tricky for more reasons than that! (I don't think anyone has proposed a scheme that is entirely satisfactory.) > In the latter case a careful > route must be searched out - this could perhaps > be via refusal of disclosure facilities (see Law 40B). It seems to me that if disclosure is not required, you have made the "psyche" legal, not illegal. Surely the way forward is to require disclosure, not to forbid it. Convention regulation may also play a part. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 28 03:06:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRG6eP01256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:06:40 +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 fBRG6WH01243 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:06:32 +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 KAA05062 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:58:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12896 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:58:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:58:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112271558.KAA12896@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Jon Brissman" > Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to > underlying partnership agreements. Would it include a 2S psyche after the > auction has gone P - P - 2H - X if the opener must bid 2NT to show spade > support? That's one good example. Another is an agreement that opener will never bid above 3H in the same auction. (I am sure I have seen the latter agreement recommended in a book; perhaps it was Fred Karpin's _Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge_.) Another example is playing Drury, which makes a psychic 1M in third seat and holding long clubs much less risky. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 28 03:14:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRGDov02275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:13:50 +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 fBRGDgH02259 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:13:42 +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 LAA05369 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA12983 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:05:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:05:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112271605.LAA12983@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ It may be helpful if we spread the WBF position > out on the table for inspection. Thanks. Not having seen any response to my earlier query, I'll take Marv's advice and spell out my concern. > I begin with the Code of Practice [ Sep 1999 ]: ... > Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, > an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable > than would have been the expectation in the instant > prior to the infraction. In my example, in the instant prior to the infraction, we were headed for 4S-1. Because of my insufficient bid, we end up in 3NT=. Does the above say our good result should be taken away? Remember, I am stipulating that the conditions for 72B1 are not met (in particular, "could have known" is not satisfied). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 28 06:02:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRJ22S03049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:02:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBRJ1lH02999 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:01:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.145] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Jfc7-0009NT-00; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c18f08$160940a0$9108e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jon Brissman" , "bridge-laws" References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:44:38 -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" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > Don Oakie wrote an in-depth article for the > ACBL Bulletin in the 1970s that was very > critical of psyches. In response, a > correspondent (whose identity I do not recall) > wrote this to Don in a letter to the editor of the > Bulletin: > > Thank you for your clever > Clarification endeavor. > It's all right to psyche > As much as you like > As long as you like to psyche never. > +=+ At the time I was already beginning to be involved in the trade; the debate between Oakie and Kaplan was largely disregarded here, maybe because we did not think their opinions of any great importance for bridge in this country. Traditionally we always had a tolerant attitude to psyching; in latter years, however, there has been some monitoring of pseudo psyches where the partnership well knows what they are doing, having been there a number of times before, and is failing to disclose its experience honestly to opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 28 06:02:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRJ22o03047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:02:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBRJ1mH03000 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:01:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.145] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Jfc9-0009NT-00; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:50:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c18f08$171d6fc0$9108e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jon Brissman" , "bridge-laws" References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:54:27 -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" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > > Please give an example or two of psyches that are > made less risky due to underlying partnership agreements. > Would it include a 2S psyche after the auction has gone > P - P - 2H - X if the opener must bid 2NT to show spade > support? > > Jon Brissman > +=+ Since I was not present I cannot say what cases they were discussing. Note that so far I have expressed no personal opinion on the path the policy might follow. As to the law, I am on firm ground. Mind you I do not think the question matters with this type of psyche; players that favour it usually do it often enough that partners cannot pretend there is no implicit partnership understanding about it. So the law requires them to disclose it as part of their methods. ~ 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 Dec 28 06:14:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBRJEUk05364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:14:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.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 fBRJELH05350 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:14:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.11.213] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16JfoI-000Apy-00; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:03:23 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c18f09$d82eade0$9108e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200112271551.KAA12824@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:07:21 -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: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > I wish we could find a way to persuade Grattan > that "beforehand" should really be "in accordance > with the SO regulations." > +=+ That is not how I understand the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A. The method of disclosure under 40B has to be such that the partnership is enabled to comply with Law 40A, allowing opponents to know of the understanding beforehand, in order that if they wish they may discuss how they will cope with 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 Fri Dec 28 14:07:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBS366i28815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBS35vH28784 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:05:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.78.251] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16JnDk-000HEw-00; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:58:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c18f4b$b95725e0$fb4ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200112271605.LAA12983@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 22:44:17 -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: Thursday, December 27, 2001 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage > In my example, in the instant prior to the infraction, > we were headed for 4S-1. Because of my insufficient > bid, we end up in 3NT=. Does the above say our > good result should be taken away? Remember, I am > stipulating that the conditions for 72B1 are not met > (in particular, "could have known" is not satisfied). > -- +=+ I did not see, or do not recall, the example. However, the law provides a procedure to apply when an insufficient bid occurs. If in compliance with the procedure the player reaches 3NT any effect of this does not result from the infraction but from the application of law. ~ 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 Dec 28 15:26:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBS4QOv12399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:26:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBS4QGH12382 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:26:16 +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 PAA19063 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:29:05 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:18:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:14:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/12/2001 03:08:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan quoted: [snip] >>The EBU's regulations say: 'Systemic psyching of >>any kind is not permitted. You may not use any >>convention to control a psyche.' [snip] Steve Willner noted: [snip] >Another example is playing Drury, which makes a >psychic 1M in third seat and holding long clubs >much less risky. Does that make Drury an illegal convention in England? Does that make Stayman also illegal?? Or are the partners of English psychers forbidden to use conventions? :-)) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 28 15:36:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBS4a1H14305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:36:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBS4ZpH14280 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:35:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id BFF7448769; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:28:07 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004b01c18c66$da081480$2c0c7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> <004b01c18c66$da081480$2c0c7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:27:59 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Considered to have been based on the tempo 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 David B. wrote: >... where 4S is considered to have been based on the tempo of 3S, ... Adam W.: >I know this was just a side comment, but please be careful even so. >In order to adjust we make no such allegation. The laws require only >that the UI demonstrably suggested the action taken over logical >alternative actions which would have been less successful. David B.: >I am not sure what the difference is between what I have said and >Adam's rephrasing of it; if 4S is "considered to have been based on >the tempo of 3S", then the tempo of 3S has contained UI which has >suggested bidding 4S over passing. They are not the same thing at all. Your phrasing implicitly considers South's reasons for choosing his call. The laws do not require that we consider them, and we're better off if we do not. For all we know South was unaware of the hesitation, or he was always planning on bidding game -- neither is relevant to our ruling. In the '60s Edgar Kaplan led a revolution in the philosophy of the Laws. Before then adjusting a score in a UI case was tantamount to accusing a player of acting unethically. As a result scores were seldom adjusted, and by all accounts the standard of ethics in the game was much lower. Signs of this revolution can been seen throughout today's laws. Consider, for instance, law 72B1's phrase "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known...". This allows us to adjust without any finding of nefarious intent. My apologies if all this seems elementary, but I find it a crucial point which is at times overlooked. -- 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 Fri Dec 28 15:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBS4r5E17350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:53:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBS4qvH17331 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id A76B7981DC; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:45:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221100842.00a9e0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:45:00 -0500 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? 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 10:54 AM +0100 12/21/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Or am I hunting nonexistent witches ? Welcome to Salem, Reverend Mather! For some wonderful similar examples please see Eddie Kantar's "Bridge Humor." He's careful to point out that at pairs one should attempt these stratagems only on the first board of a round. -- 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 Sat Dec 29 00:09:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBSD8ux11945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 00:08:56 +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-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 fBSD8mH11941 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 00:08:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.120] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16JwdC-0003bx-00; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:01:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c18f9f$f0c07000$7838e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> <004b01c18c66$da081480$2c0c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Considered to have been based on the tempo Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:02:02 -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: "David Burn" Cc: Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 4:27 AM Subject: [BLML] Considered to have been based on the tempo > In the '60s Edgar Kaplan led a revolution in the philosophy > of the Laws. Before then adjusting a score in a UI case was > tantamount to accusing a player of acting unethically. As a > result scores were seldom adjusted, and by all accounts the > standard of ethics in the game was much lower. > > Signs of this revolution can been seen throughout today's > laws. Consider, for instance, law 72B1's phrase "Whenever > the Director deems that an offender could have known...". > This allows us to adjust without any finding of nefarious > intent. > +=+ For the record, the 'could have known' phrase came out of exchanges between Roy Higson, a past CTD of the EBU, and myself. It was proposed by me to Edgar for inclusion in the 1987 Laws. Roy was a CTD who argued that TDs should not be exposed to writs for defamation. The danger from writs was actually greater in the USA, where the law had gone mad in the awards for damages that the courts were making, than in the UK. So Edgar was not slow to grasp the point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 29 02:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBSF2UK02170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:02:30 +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 fBSF2IH02131 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-114.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.114]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBSEsVs01813 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:54:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C2C5DD3.1000001@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:56:03 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200112271558.KAA12896@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Jon Brissman" >>Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to >>underlying partnership agreements. Would it include a 2S psyche after the >>auction has gone P - P - 2H - X if the opener must bid 2NT to show spade >>support? >> > > That's one good example. Another is an agreement that opener will never > bid above 3H in the same auction. (I am sure I have seen the latter > agreement recommended in a book; perhaps it was Fred Karpin's > _Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge_.) Another example is > playing Drury, which makes a psychic 1M in third seat and holding long > clubs much less risky. > Precisely the reason why I don't play Drury. I believe it crosses the line between a genuine psychic H1H and a "controlled psyche". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 29 02:03:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBSF2U002165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:02:30 +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 fBSF2GH02127 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:02:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-114.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.114]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBSEsSs01786 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:54:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C2C5504.40403@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:18:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200112271551.KAA12824@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002801c18f09$d82eade0$9108e150@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am not really sure if Grattan has taken a position in this, but if he has, I agree with him. At least if I understand correctly what his position would be if he has taken it. Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ That is not how I understand the words > "without prior announcement" in Law 40A. The > method of disclosure under 40B has to be such > that the partnership is enabled to comply with > Law 40A, allowing opponents to know of the > understanding beforehand, in order that if they > wish they may discuss how they will cope with > it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Much of this misunderstanding stems from the way the laws are formulated, and interpreted. The laws make it a crime to use methods that are not disclosed beforehand. Some people interpret this by saying that the making of the bid becomes unallowed, and they say that the board is rendered unplayable. Yet that interpretation is only used in "psyche" cases, and not in regular "misexplanations". If I fail to alert my partner's call, and it's not on our CC either (or more commonly, we don't have one), then I have also failed the disclosure. Yet all that is commonly applied is L40C "adjust if damaged". I believe the same should be true of psyches that are deemed systemic. After all, we may very well believe a player when he says, "I had no idea my partner had psyched", especially if he continues "I accept that I could have known, and that my opponents should have been informed about the possibility". But I believe that in the majority of cases, there will be no resulting damage from the failure to disclose the possibility of a particular psyche. I have come to the realization that it is far better to be extremely severe on the disclosure part of particular psyches, and less on the "forbidding" part of L40A. Opponents are far happier if I tell them, "I do not consider this a psyche, and I feel you should have been told that this was an additional possibility; now, if you had been told it was a (small) possibility, at what point might you have acted differently ?". Quite often, they realize there has not been any damage. And the Os are told off just the same. -- 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 Dec 29 03:28:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBSGPtA17247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:25:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBSGPlH17231 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:25:47 +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 fBSGHx819005; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:17:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:14:04 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C2C5DD3.1000001@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-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) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/28/01 at 12:56 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > Precisely the reason why I don't play Drury. I believe it crosses the line > between a genuine psychic H1H and a "controlled psyche". Hm. If I understand this correctly, you don't play Drury because you believe either (a) it is unethical to play it, because partner *might* psyche a major suit opening in third seat or (b) you don't like to play it because it constrains you *not* to psyche such an opening. Is that right? Your privilege, of course , but I hope you don't hold other players to it (especially (a)), at least where Drury is legal by SO regulation. If I understand Drury's history in the EBU correctly, it was long banned because of (a), but is now legal, presumably on the hope that players will implement the constraint in (b) and the understanding that if they do not, the laws will provide redress. One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is as much in the dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a player who psyches in a position where his partner might use Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will keep him out of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at low levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. A question occurs: if a partnership have an agreement *not* to psyche a major opening in third seat, because they play Drury, is that fact required to be disclosed (I would assume so). If so, how and when, under say, ACBL and EBU rules, should it be disclosed? Is marking (or writing) "Drury" (with an explanation of the meanings of bids, of course) on the CC sufficient? 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 29 05:57:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBSIusx14863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 05:56:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBSIukH14838 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 05:56:46 +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 NAA13799 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA22708 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:49:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:49:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112281849.NAA22708@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I wish we could find a way to persuade Grattan > > that "beforehand" should really be "in accordance > > with the SO regulations." > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ That is not how I understand the words > "without prior announcement" in Law 40A. This is another example of how our readings of L40 are so different. It looks to me as though L40A deals with calls that are not based on partnership understanding in any way whatsoever. I trust we agree that such calls are legal provided the qualification is met (and provided no convention regulations are violated). Where we differ is that I don't understand how L40A has any application where the call (or play!) in question has some element of partnership understanding involved. > The > method of disclosure under 40B has to be such > that the partnership is enabled to comply with > Law 40A, allowing opponents to know of the > understanding beforehand, in order that if they > wish they may discuss how they will cope with > it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Here, though, is the primary disagreement. I cannot understand the above at all. Let's get away from psychs and think about ordinary partnership understandings -- say Flannery. Suppose our 2D opening bid shows four spades, at least five hearts, and opening bid values. This is a legal convention in our game. Now the opponents have a mixup because they haven't agreed how to defend. (One of them thinks 2NT is natural, but the other one thinks it shows minors.) We alerted the 2D bid when it came up, but it was too late for the opponents to agree a defense. Case 1: we have failed to mark Flannery on our convention card as required. Or maybe we don't even have a convention card. Case 2: We are playing in a game where the SO does not require convention cards or any other advance disclosure for Flannery. In Case 1, I think there is a L40B violation, and (in spite of Herman), it is the 2D bid itself that is illegal. In Case 2, I don't see any infraction. We have no doubt gained an advantage from the absence of advance disclosure, but it is not our fault that the SO's regulations are deficient. I would adjust the score in Case 1 but not in Case 2. OK, why am I wrong? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 29 12:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBT1R7D20352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:27:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBT1QtH20344 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:26:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.80.186] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16K89Q-0007Db-00; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:19:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c19007$0d5aa660$ba50e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:05:47 -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: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > On 12/28/01 at 12:56 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be > (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > > Precisely the reason why I don't play Drury. I believe it > > crosses the line between a genuine psychic H1H and a > > "controlled psyche". > > Hm. If I understand this correctly, you don't play Drury > because you believe either (a) it is unethical to play it, > because partner *might* psyche a major suit opening in > third seat or (b) you don't like to play it because it > constrains you *not* to psyche such an opening. Is that right? > > Your privilege, of course , but I hope you don't hold other > players to it (especially (a)), at least where Drury is legal by > SO regulation. > > If I understand Drury's history in the EBU correctly, it was > long banned because of (a), but is now legal, presumably > on the hope that players will implement the constraint in (b) > and the understanding that if they do not, the laws will > provide redress. > +=+ If partnership experience reveals a repetition of psyches that are saved from ill consequences because the partnership uses Drury, there is an implicit understanding that Drury may be relied upon to do just that. Such understandings may be regulated and the question is one for regulating authorities. The English prohibit the use of any convention to control a psyche; other authorities have other regulations. But the key is not whether it is legal to use Drury: the key is what the regulations have to say about 'psyches' based upon implicit understandings, or indeed explicit understandings - and, where they permit them, what they say about the prior disclosure that the law requires. There are no problems in regulating the use of conventions in association with psyches. For example, the EBU allows the Watson Double of 3NT, requesting partner not to lead the suit the player has bid - but a condition is that the Watson Double may not be used by a player who has psyched. But If the policy is not to allow control of psyches by arrangements involving no convention, it requires careful consideration of the way in which to achieve this. Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any such partnership understanding may be employed, these methods may not therefore be used in tournaments where EBU regulations apply." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 29 12:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBT1R5c20351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:27:05 +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 fBT1QrH20341 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:26:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.80.186] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16K89N-0007Db-00; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c19007$0baf6760$ba50e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Steve Willner" References: <200112281849.NAA22708@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:00:57 -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: Friday, December 28, 2001 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > > I wish we could find a way to persuade Grattan > > > that "beforehand" should really be "in accordance > > > with the SO regulations." > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ That is not how I understand the words > > "without prior announcement" in Law 40A. > > This is another example of how our readings of L40 are > so different. It looks to me as though L40A deals with > calls that are not based on partnership understanding > in any way whatsoever. I trust we agree that such calls > are legal provided the qualification is met (and > provided no convention regulations are violated). > > Where we differ is that I don't understand how L40A > has any application where the call (or play!) in question > has some element of partnership understanding > involved. > +=+ OK, Steve. You would neither ask nor expect me, having set my position, to enter into a long debate on it. Our problem is not the laws, it is the language. I speak what I believe to be English; you also speak what you believe to be English; but we do not share a common understanding of the meaning of the words we speak and read. The resolution of the problem will lie in an escape from Kaplanesque linguistic sophistication in the future. Good wishes for 2002. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 29 15:14:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBT4Ct820435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:12:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBT4ClH20431 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:12:48 +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 fBT44x800428; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 23:05:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 22:58:08 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000901c19007$0d5aa660$ba50e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20011228230501-r01010800-9565420b-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) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/29/01 at 1:05 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on > the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a > regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > such partnership understanding may be employed, > these methods may not therefore be used in > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." I do not see why such a regulation does not circumvent Law 40A in a way which it should not be permitted to do. It seems to say "we won't let you comply with the requirement of the law to disclose your methods ahead of time, so you can't use those methods." 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 29 18:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBT7pC020509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:51:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBT7p4H20505 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:51:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.236] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16KE9E-000EZ3-00; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 07:43:17 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c1903c$b81c8980$ec56e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20011228230501-r01010800-9565420b-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 07:44:17 -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" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > On 12/29/01 at 1:05 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on > > the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a > > regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > > such partnership understanding may be employed, > > these methods may not therefore be used in > > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." > > I do not see why such a regulation does not circumvent > Law 40A in a way which it should not be permitted to do. > It seems to say "we won't let you comply with the > requirement of the law to disclose your methods ahead > of time, so you can't use those methods." > +=+ This is, of course, exactly the question in my mind. Does Law 40 actually say that with prior announcement you shall be allowed to psyche with a partnership understanding? For the moment I am not convinced it does; 40A is clear enough in permitting psyches not associated with a partnership understanding. Best, ~ 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 Dec 30 03:31:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBTGUuJ10738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:30:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBTGUmH10734 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:30:49 +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 fBTGMx828303; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 11:22:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 11:21:03 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001401c1903c$b81c8980$ec56e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20011229112300-r01010800-cb36d4a8-0904-0109@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) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/29/01 at 7:44 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > On 12/29/01 at 1:05 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) > wrote: > > > > > Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on > > > the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a > > > regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > > > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > > > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > > > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > > > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > > > such partnership understanding may be employed, > > > these methods may not therefore be used in > > > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." > > > > I do not see why such a regulation does not circumvent > > Law 40A in a way which it should not be permitted to do. > > It seems to say "we won't let you comply with the > > requirement of the law to disclose your methods ahead > > of time, so you can't use those methods." > > > +=+ This is, of course, exactly the question > in my mind. Does Law 40 actually say that with > prior announcement you shall be allowed to > psyche with a partnership understanding? > For the moment I am not convinced it does; > 40A is clear enough in permitting psyches not > associated with a partnership understanding. I think that 40A says that certain calls are permitted even though there has been no prior announcement that such calls might be made, provided there is no partnership understanding regarding those calls. If there is partnership understanding, we have to look elsewhere. A psyche is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." As I take "misstatement" to mean "in the context of partnership agreements", it seems to me that if one has an agreement to "psyche", such a call is no longer a psyche. It would probably be a convention, I think. So 40D would seem to apply, and we have to look at SO regulations. Am I on the right track? 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 30 03:49:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBTGn3310758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:49:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBTGmtH10754 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:48:55 +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 fBTGf4812274; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 11:41:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 11:34:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001401c1903c$b81c8980$ec56e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20011229114105-r01010800-24f2d67c-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) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/29/01 at 7:44 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > On 12/29/01 at 1:05 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) > wrote: > > > > > Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on > > > the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a > > > regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > > > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > > > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > > > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > > > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > > > such partnership understanding may be employed, > > > these methods may not therefore be used in > > > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." > > > > I do not see why such a regulation does not circumvent > > Law 40A in a way which it should not be permitted to do. > > It seems to say "we won't let you comply with the > > requirement of the law to disclose your methods ahead > > of time, so you can't use those methods." > > > +=+ This is, of course, exactly the question > in my mind. Does Law 40 actually say that with > prior announcement you shall be allowed to > psyche with a partnership understanding? > For the moment I am not convinced it does; > 40A is clear enough in permitting psyches not > associated with a partnership understanding. On the question of the proposed regulation, perhaps I worded my objection poorly. One is allowed to psyche, absent partnership agreement. Generally speaking, one is allowed to make natural calls, and SOs cannot regulate the use of such calls (I realize there are exceptions, but I don't believe they apply here). If one has a natural system of replies to some call, I don't believe the proposed regulation would be legal, even if the system might be used to control a psyche of that call, *because* SOs cannot regulate the replies. I might even go so far as to say it would be illegal even if the pair in question *deliberately* devised their reply system to allow for control of a possible psyche. Regarding prior disclosure, that falls under the purview of Law 40B. 40B says that if an opposing pair might not be expected to know the meaning of a call without explanation, then the meaning must be disclosed "IAW SO regulation". If a call is otherwise legal (as above) then to issue a regulation making it illegal simply by not allowing prior disclosure of it is a circumvention of the laws, it seems to me, rather than being in accordance with 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 30 21:59:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUAvL111207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:57:21 +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-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 fBUAv9H11180 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.37]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBUAnKJ01880 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:49:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C2DA56E.5020505@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:13:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200112281849.NAA22708@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Here, though, is the primary disagreement. I cannot understand the > above at all. > > Let's get away from psychs and think about ordinary partnership > understandings -- say Flannery. Suppose our 2D opening bid shows four > spades, at least five hearts, and opening bid values. This is a legal > convention in our game. Now the opponents have a mixup because they > haven't agreed how to defend. (One of them thinks 2NT is natural, but > the other one thinks it shows minors.) We alerted the 2D bid when it > came up, but it was too late for the opponents to agree a defense. > > Case 1: we have failed to mark Flannery on our convention card as > required. Or maybe we don't even have a convention card. > > Case 2: We are playing in a game where the SO does not require > convention cards or any other advance disclosure for Flannery. > > In Case 1, I think there is a L40B violation, and (in spite of Herman), aha - here I am! > it is the 2D bid itself that is illegal. In Case 2, I don't see any I don't see why this should be so. Obviously there has been less than required prior disclosure, and there may well be damage as a result. Why not simply use L40C on this. Say opponents have nothing to bid. You reach a slam which goes down. "hey", you say, "we have forgotten to priorly disclose Flannery - this is an illegal bid, so please award us 40/60". Sorry, not in my jurisdiction. > infraction. We have no doubt gained an advantage from the absence of > advance disclosure, but it is not our fault that the SO's regulations > are deficient. I would adjust the score in Case 1 but not in Case 2. > > OK, why am I wrong? Not in your last sentence - you say it yourself - adjust. That means apply L40C, not L40A. The 2D is not illegal, but the absence of prior disclosure is. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 30 21:59:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUAvKQ11202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:57:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBUAv8H11177 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:57:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.37]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBUAnGJ01875 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:49:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:06:54 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 12/28/01 at 12:56 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > >>Precisely the reason why I don't play Drury. I believe it crosses the line >>between a genuine psychic H1H and a "controlled psyche". >> > > Hm. If I understand this correctly, you don't play Drury because you believe > either (a) it is unethical to play it, because partner *might* psyche a major > suit opening in third seat or (b) you don't like to play it because it > constrains you *not* to psyche such an opening. Is that right? > right in (b). > Your privilege, of course , but I hope you don't hold other players to it > (especially (a)), at least where Drury is legal by SO regulation. > of course not. > If I understand Drury's history in the EBU correctly, it was long banned because > of (a), but is now legal, presumably on the hope that players will implement the > constraint in (b) and the understanding that if they do not, the laws will > provide redress. > exactly. it should not be the playing of Drury that is illegal, but the practice of psyching when knowing Drury is opposite to keep away tragedies. > One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is as much in the > dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a player who psyches in a position > where his partner might use Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will > keep him out of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at low > levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. > Well, I am not pronouncing myself at this point on the ethics of the situation. But the situation is entirely different with or without Drury, that much is clear. > A question occurs: if a partnership have an agreement *not* to psyche a major > opening in third seat, because they play Drury, is that fact required to be > disclosed (I would assume so). If so, how and when, under say, ACBL and EBU > rules, should it be disclosed? Is marking (or writing) "Drury" (with an > explanation of the meanings of bids, of course) on the CC sufficient? > It is my opinion that the knowledge "psyching - never" is part of PU, and should always be disclosed to opponents. > 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 Sun Dec 30 22:59:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUBx3723329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 22:59:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBUBwrH23302 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 22:58:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 3701 invoked by uid 50005); 30 Dec 2001 11:51:04 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpb with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4177. . Clean. Processed in 0.420342 secs); 30 Dec 2001 11:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 30 Dec 2001 11:51:04 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 06:50:25 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:06:54 +0100, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > > >> If I understand Drury's history in the EBU correctly, it was long banned because >> of (a), but is now legal, presumably on the hope that players will implement the >> constraint in (b) and the understanding that if they do not, the laws will >> provide redress. >> > > >exactly. it should not be the playing of Drury that is >illegal, but the practice of psyching when knowing Drury is >opposite to keep away tragedies. > > >> One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is as much in the >> dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a player who psyches in a position >> where his partner might use Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will >> keep him out of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at low >> levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. >> > > >Well, I am not pronouncing myself at this point on the >ethics of the situation. But the situation is entirely >different with or without Drury, that much is clear. > > I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must the dividing line be drawn? It seems most unclear to me, assuming my partner and I were still playing that system, must we play two different response systems in 1st/2nd and 3rd seats so that we don't have the protection of passing a more frequent forcing 1NT with a psychic opener? At what point do the responses become part of the basic system rather than a means of avoiding disaster after a psychic opener? Does our system simply bar us from psyching a 1M bid if our NCBO will not allow variation of systems by seat - does a different set of responses to conform with the psyching problem actually count as a different system? It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a significant percentage of players are to be expected to understand the implications. 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 Dec 30 23:49:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUCncd03560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:49:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBUCnTH03530 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:49:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id fBUCfYd04172 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:41:34 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:41:32 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 12/30/2001 13:41:34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Somebody wrote, and indeed hit the bulls eye: One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is as much in the dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a player who psyches in a position where his partner might use Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will keep him out of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at low levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. and then Brian Medows commented: I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must the dividing line be drawn? . . . . (snip) It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a significant percentage of players are to be expected to understand the implications. My comment is simply this: The moment your partner has better reason (from agreements and/or from partnership experience) than your opponents to understand or to be aware of what might be going on, you have crossed the line. Law40 just puts into words the rule that opponents shall have the same possibility as your partner has to fully understand your calls. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 00:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUDRiA10859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:27:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBUDRZH10838 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:27:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2742 invoked by uid 50005); 30 Dec 2001 13:19:47 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4177. . Clean. Processed in 0.333079 secs); 30 Dec 2001 13:19:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 30 Dec 2001 13:19:46 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:19:39 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:41:32 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >Somebody wrote, and indeed hit the bulls eye: > >One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is >as much in the dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a >player who psyches in a position where his partner might use >Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will keep him out >of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at >low levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. > >and then Brian Medows commented: > >I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. >Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant >number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M >opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then >what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass >most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some >other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must >the dividing line be drawn? >. . . . (snip) >It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a >significant percentage of players are to be expected to >understand the implications. > >My comment is simply this: > >The moment your partner has better reason (from agreements and/or >from partnership experience) than your opponents to understand or >to be aware of what might be going on, you have crossed the line. > I believe you've misunderstood my point, Sven - or one of us has misunderstood the point of the discussion. I don't think we're talking about whether your partner has better reason than the opps to suspect a psyche, I would hope we're all in agreement about that one. As far as I understand it, the point under discussion is when your systemic agreements help protect you from the consequences of psyching. Maybe an example will make it clearer. Let's go back to the case of Drury, which is what started all this. I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the question I was addressing, not the question of whether your psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to opps. >Law40 just puts into words the rule that opponents shall have the >same possibility as your partner has to fully understand your calls. > I doubt that anyone disagrees with this - certainly I don't. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 03:26:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUGPxT15932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:25:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBUGPoH15909 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:25:51 +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 fBUGHxq29042 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:17:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:14:59 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20011230111802-r01010800-ec3b6b8c-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) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/29/01 at 12:06 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > It is my opinion that the knowledge "psyching - never" is > part of PU, and should always be disclosed to opponents. It occurs to me that in the ACBL, at least at lower levels of expertise and experience, many people might well assume no one ever psyches, because few people ever do. Not sure whether that's a good thing, or how (in the ACBL) it affects the principle of full disclosure. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 05:22:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUILot18384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:21:50 +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 fBUILhH18380 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:21:43 +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 NAA15866 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA16555 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112301813.NAA16555@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ OK, Steve. You would neither ask nor expect me, > having set my position, to enter into a long debate on it. Fair enough. > Our problem is not the laws, it is the language. I'd like to think so, and indeed I do think so in most cases. I'm a little worried, though, about what happens when there is a partnership understanding and the SO has neglected to require advance disclosure. (The December _Bridge World_ gives some interesting examples, although neither the correspondent nor TBW seems to be aware of the ACBL rules that would have applied to some of the examples given.) > The resolution of the problem will lie in an > escape from Kaplanesque linguistic sophistication in > the future. Good wishes for 2002. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 'Sophistication' might not be exactly the word I would have chosen, but I do look forward to future clarifications. Best wishes to all for great bridge in 2002. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 06:14:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUJESp18414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:14:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBUJEKH18410 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:14:20 +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 OAA16289 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA17478 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:06:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:06:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112301906.OAA17478@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Case 1: we have failed to mark Flannery on our convention card as > > required. Or maybe we don't even have a convention card. > > > > Case 2: We are playing in a game where the SO does not require > > convention cards or any other advance disclosure for Flannery. (The December _Bridge World_ gives more realistic examples of things that ought to be disclosed in advance but are not, at least in the ACBL. The Flannery example will suffice, though, to discuss the principles to be applied.) > > In Case 1, I think there is a L40B violation, and (in spite of Herman), > > it is the 2D bid itself that is illegal. > From: Herman De Wael > I don't see why this should be so. Obviously there has been > less than required prior disclosure, and there may well be > damage as a result. Why not simply use L40C on this. That is certainly a possible approach. It seems to me that both 40B and 40C have been violated, so I guess we should give the NOS the benefit of whichever one is more favorable. We are adjusting the score in either case; the difference is what we are adjusting to. For 40B, we assume the 2D bid was never made, whereas for 40C the 2D bid was made but the NOS didn't have a misunderstanding. (We are applying the L12C2 "had the irregularity not occurred." For L40B, the irregularity is the 2D bid whereas for 40C it is the unmarked convention card.) I confess that prior to Herman's note, I had thought 40C is only for mis-alerts and mis-explanations, but it doesn't say that. I don't see why it shouldn't apply equally to missing pre-alerts or wrong convention cards. > Say opponents have nothing to bid. You reach a slam which > goes down. "hey", you say, "we have forgotten to priorly > disclose Flannery - this is an illegal bid, so please award > us 40/60". Sorry, not in my jurisdiction. Nor in mine. I'm not in the EBU, so there is no reason to assign an artificial score. And anyway Flannery is legal here; it is the failure to disclose that is the problem. And finally, the NOS have not been damaged, so why adjust? > > are deficient. I would adjust the score in Case 1 but not in Case 2. > Not in your last sentence - you say it yourself - adjust. I think everyone will adjust in case 1, although we might possibly disagree about exactly what the adjustment should be. The question is whether or not to adjust in case 2. I think Grattan, for example, would do so. I gather you would not. > That means apply L40C, not L40A. The 2D is not illegal, but > the absence of prior disclosure is. As noted elsewhere, I don't think 40A has anything to do with the case. There was most certainly a partnership understanding, so it's 40B we need to look at. That seems to prohibit the 2D bid, but only if the SO had the foresight to require advance disclosure. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 06:22:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUJM3918427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:22:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBUJLtH18423 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:21:55 +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 OAA16352 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA17598 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:14:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:14:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112301914.OAA17598@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on > the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a > regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > such partnership understanding may be employed, > these methods may not therefore be used in > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." Again let's apply this to something other than psychs. The ACBL convention card has no obvious place to note defensive agreements against (most) opponents' methods. Does this mean we are not allowed to have any conventional defenses to, say, the opponents' strong 1C or 2C openings? Or indeed any defensive agreements whatsoever? I don't think prohibiting disclosure is a useful approach. And I am still unconvinced that regulating psychics based on partner's awareness is useful. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 10:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBUNu6c18902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:56:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBUNtuH18871 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:55:57 +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 XAA01224 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:48:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:46:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. 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 , Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >Somebody wrote, and indeed hit the bulls eye: > >One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is >as much in the dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a >player who psyches in a position where his partner might use >Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will keep him out >of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at >low levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. > >and then Brian Medows commented: > >I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. >Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant >number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M >opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then >what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass >most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some >other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must >the dividing line be drawn? >. . . . (snip) >It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a >significant percentage of players are to be expected to >understand the implications. > so I was playing bridge with my daughter's fiance and the auction goes 1H by LHO, 1N by pard, "Range?" by RHO. Now he has *never* psyched 1NT with me before nor I with him, so I said "No specific agreement as to range (which we don't have as we both play it as about 15-17 and wouldn't dream of discussing it), and although we've never done this one, there's a possibility that he's getting his own back". Opponents who knew us smiled and the auction proceeded 4H P P 4S. I looked up and said "the likelihood has increased". An excruciatingly slow double ensued. I put dummy down commenting "It could even be a make, unless you're cold for slam" and it yielded minus 100 and a pan-galactic top. Now the player on my right has won the 4-stars (think of the Vanderbilt) and his 4H bid was plain stupid. He should have doubled to smoke us out and then made a forcing pass over 3/4S but the point at issue is that he received all necessary information. btw it was 7141 facing 3145 with them cold for 6H. We put the hands away and got on with the second board. cheers john, >My comment is simply this: > >The moment your partner has better reason (from agreements and/or >from partnership experience) than your opponents to understand or >to be aware of what might be going on, you have crossed the line. > >Law40 just puts into words the rule that opponents shall have the >same possibility as your partner has to fully understand your calls. > >regards Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 31 23:51:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVCn7m04975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:49:07 +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 fBVCmuH04966 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:48:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-88.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.88]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBVCf3s16006 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:41:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C302CB7.8070901@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:15:35 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. > Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant > number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M > opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then > what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass > most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some > other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must > the dividing line be drawn? It seems most unclear to me, > assuming my partner and I were still playing that system, must we > play two different response systems in 1st/2nd and 3rd seats so > that we don't have the protection of passing a more frequent > forcing 1NT with a psychic opener? At what point do the responses > become part of the basic system rather than a means of avoiding > disaster after a psychic opener? Does our system simply bar us > from psyching a 1M bid if our NCBO will not allow variation of > systems by seat - does a different set of responses to conform > with the psyching problem actually count as a different system? > > It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a > significant percentage of players are to be expected to > understand the implications. > > Brian. > Your concerns are valid Brian, and let me try and explain. I don't think there is a problem with any system per se. Nor with any psyche per se. But when a player realizes, either when preparing his system notes, or just at the table when faced with the particular hand, that he might perform a "psyche", knowing that the system will protect it from doing harm, then I believe the opponents are at a disadvantage. They do not know the full implications of the systemic responses, all they are told are the "agreed" meanings of the psychic call. I deem this to be misinformation. I have given the example of my 2cl opener. With my previous partner, that was always strong, and partner had only one response with any hand above 3HCP : 2di. With my current partner, 2cl includes a weak-two in diamonds. If I were to play with my previous partner again, and I would "psyche" the 2Cl opener with weak diamonds, then I'd be guilty of misexplanation. The true meaning of the 2Cl opener is "partner should reply 2di unless very weak, and my next call will further explain my hand". By saying that 2Cl is always strong, I have failed to say what pass would mean as my next bid. So you see Brian, there is no problem, unless you start psyching. > -- 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 Dec 31 23:51:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVCn8r04976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:49:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 fBVCmvH04968 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:48:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-88.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.88]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBVCf5s16017 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:41:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C302E16.3030303@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:21:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200112301906.OAA17478@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > >>Say opponents have nothing to bid. You reach a slam which >>goes down. "hey", you say, "we have forgotten to priorly >>disclose Flannery - this is an illegal bid, so please award >>us 40/60". Sorry, not in my jurisdiction. >> > > Nor in mine. I'm not in the EBU, so there is no reason to assign an > artificial score. And anyway Flannery is legal here; it is the failure > to disclose that is the problem. And finally, the NOS have not been > damaged, so why adjust? > Well Steve, it might be a consequence of yoour wishing to cancel the 2Di bid by L40A. "a bid is illegal if not priorly disclosed" seems what you (or at least some) are trying to say. L40A does not speak of damage. My point is that you cannot use L40A to simply get away with unwanted type of bidding, simply because the meanings have not been disclosed. Only L40C can be used, and there you need damage. > >>>are deficient. I would adjust the score in Case 1 but not in Case 2. >>> > >>Not in your last sentence - you say it yourself - adjust. >> > > I think everyone will adjust in case 1, although we might possibly > disagree about exactly what the adjustment should be. The question is > whether or not to adjust in case 2. I think Grattan, for example, would > do so. I gather you would not. > > >>That means apply L40C, not L40A. The 2D is not illegal, but >>the absence of prior disclosure is. >> > > As noted elsewhere, I don't think 40A has anything to do with the case. > There was most certainly a partnership understanding, so it's 40B we > need to look at. That seems to prohibit the 2D bid, but only if the SO > had the foresight to require advance disclosure. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/