From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 01:45:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VEhFp14453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 01:43:15 +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 g0VEh5H14435 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 01:43:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.73.116] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WII1-000K9Q-00; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:34:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c1aa64$525d9200$7449e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:35:51 -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 Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 31 January 2002 10:11 Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. > +=+ You surprise me. I would not think 'semi-balanced' contemplates a singleton or void. Yet another case where long-standing practices unrecognized by new generations call for interpretations to be laid down. However, the need to disclose all such understandings is clear enough. ~ 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 Feb 1 02:01:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VF18417959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:01:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailg.telia.com (mailg.telia.com [194.22.194.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VF0wH17928 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:00:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from d1o270.telia.com (d1o270.telia.com [217.208.198.241]) by mailg.telia.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0VEq5T04251; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:52:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by d1o270.telia.com (8.10.2/8.10.1) id g0VEq5B24160; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:52:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:52:05 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> X-Authentication-Warning: d1o270.telia.com: www set sender to tjolpe@telia.com using -f From: "Sven-Olov Flodqvist" Reply-To: "Sven-Olov Flodqvist" To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, "Tim West-meads" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton X-Mailer: Telia Webmail X-Telia-webmail-clientstamp: [193.44.17.2] 2002-01-31 15:52:05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk citerar Tim West-meads : > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? Regards -tjolpe -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 02:09:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VF93X19459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:09:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VF8sH19430 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:08:54 +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 PAA16461; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:57:11 +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 QAA03477; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:00:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131154525.00a72d20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:03:09 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:11 31/01/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <000801c1a9e5$1c5ac440$7733e150@dodona> >Grattan wrote: > > > The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT > > openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and > > this implies that there should be disclosure of any > > agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. > >I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and >5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). >I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. AG : there is nothing contradictory about these statements and the EBL policy. What is specifically described as HAS by EBL is the opening 1NT showing something specific, else than "a little of all suits". For example, 1NT = spades and diamonds.. In Belgium, if the main suit is known, this would be classified as artificial, not HAS. I played a T4 match last tuesday against a pair using 1NT = 11-17 with 5+ hearts, denying 4+ spades (kind of La Majeure d'Abord), 1D showing the balanced hand - no problem in this competition. But you are somewhat free to define what constitutes a balanced or semi-balanced hand, subject of course to disclosure. IOW, there should be some limit of pattern, under which you usually open 1NT when in the right range, but you won't bypass. My CC, when playing with Alex, mentions '15-17(18) HCP, FREQ 5M, 5422, 6322, SPLH(mainly K)' For those unaccustomed to the notation, SPLH = bare high honor. This means that we consider those hands as balanced enough to open 1NT, accepting eg that partner transfer into our singleton. 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 Feb 1 02:29:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VFTMM23286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VFTCH23265 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:29:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-111-101.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.111.101] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16WJ0X-0006rx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:20:13 +0000 Message-ID: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:18:37 -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 Tjolpe wrote: > In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no > singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > > All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half was not. In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. 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 Feb 1 02:32:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VFWBc23807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:32:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VFW2H23784 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-159.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.159]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AB109F63 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:23:09 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:19:49 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Tim West-meads writes: >> Grattan wrote: >> >> The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT >> openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and >> this implies that there should be disclosure of any >> agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. FWIW, this does not accord with the EBU (OB 9.3.1) definition. This defines only 6322 and 5422 as 'Semi-balanced'. 4441 & 5431 along with 5440 (but not 6331) are described as 'Three-suiters'. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 03:00:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VFxcD28786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:59:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VFxSH28753 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:59:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d260.iae.nl [212.61.5.6]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E0AB2212BB for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:50:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00c401c1aa6e$e3040320$ad053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> <002901c1aa33$c529f5c0$b141e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:07:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As said before the new board contained 52 cards when laid on the table. A diamond king of THE foregoing board was still on the table and not restored to the pocket of that board. (Law7C) Established fact. Usually the player concerned is busily talking the play of the foregoing board, whereby the new hand is taken from the pocket and put on the table. The player than orders his hand by taking a card one after another in his hand. The diamond king will thusly be added to the hand of the player. Maybe later as a forgotten card. Question: Must the ruling be based on Law 13 or has the diamond king to be considered as a pokemon picture, to be removed from the hand whereupon play continues? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while > Until we can clear these ambiguities." > ['Romeo and Juliet'] > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:05 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > Our general approach is to try to judge what > > happened, not to make unjustified assumptions. > > If we wanted to make unjustified assumptions, > > of course, we would assume the card was added > > after the cards were taken from the board, since > > that is considerably more likely. But why should > > we? Why should we not do our job and investigate? > > > +=+ It was not my contention that the Director > should not seek to establish facts. However, in a case > like this it can be difficult to get a clear picture - the > players may well not know precisely what happened; a > card lying loose may have been "put back" into the > board, for example, but as it happens into the wrong > board. In this correspondence I have twice seen it > said that Law 13 refers to a board that arrives at > the table with a defective hand; those who have said > this should read the Law again. If there were 14 cards > in the hand when he took it from the slot this meets > the condition in the Law. It is open to a Director who > fails to establish clearly what did happen to deem > that there may have been 14 cards in the hand when > the player lifted it from the board, no matter how or > when the fourteenth arrived there. Such a decision is > not 'unjustified' and allows the Director to make a > ruling based upon Law 13. ~ 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 Fri Feb 1 03:07:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VG7Cq00105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:07:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g0VG72H00080 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:07:03 +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 QAA28594; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:55:19 +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 QAA08232; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:58:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131164757.00a60760@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:01:15 +0100 To: "Sven-Olov Flodqvist" , twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, "Tim West-meads" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0VG75H00084 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:52 31/01/2002 +0100, Sven-Olov Flodqvist wrote: >citerar Tim West-meads : > > > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and > > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). > > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. > >In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no >singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > >All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? AG : Le Dentu classified 4441 and 5431 as semi-balanced; There seems to be no official definition of the term. This does not mean that, as David wished, the word should be crossed out. I'll use what Mathematicians call an argument of continuity : place all patterns on a scale of unbalancedness, say from 0 (4333) to 1000 (13-000). Call hands below some grade 'balanced', call the next bracket 'semi-balanced' if you wish. In French, some make subtle distinctions between : balancée, équilibrée, répartie (note that 'équilibré' is the translation for 'balanced' when applying to an object which has found its equilibrium). Surely there should be _some_ limit for a 1NT opening, which might be defined in regulations.You may wish to make provisions for identically distributed hands to get different grades according to honor placement (eg bare honor, weak 5-card suit). What's important in the NT regulation is that a NT bid will be called non-artificial (thus avoiding HAS status) when it covers all hands below some grade in some strength range. If regulations specify a maximal grade, so be it, but it doesn't seem to be the case in EBL. Else, every partnership should specify the limit, if it is not classical in the area. 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 Feb 1 03:20:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VGJnD02368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 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 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 g0VGJdH02332 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:19:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0VGAlw06637 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:10:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: <001501c1aa64$525d9200$7449e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ You surprise me. I would not think 'semi-balanced' > contemplates a singleton or void. Yet another case > where long-standing practices unrecognized by > new generations call for interpretations to be laid > down. However, the need to disclose all such > understandings is clear enough. ~ G ~ +=+ No problem about disclosure, there's plenty of space next to 1NT on the CC (though I might have gotten the alert status wrong). I arrived at my conclusion by starting with the 3 balanced patterns and making "one card shifts". It just felt wrong that moving a single card could change a hand from "balanced" to "unbalanced". I agree with DB that it is better to use numbers rather than (or in addition to) words. Section 9.3.1 of the OB is indeed unambiguous as brambledown pointed out - I only got as far as 5.3.1(b) where it is clear that even though 1NT which may contain a singleton is not a "9.3.1 Natural NT bid" it is considered natural *for alerting purposes*. A bit confusing that! Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 03:41:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VGfG805209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:41:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g0VGf7H05194 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:41:07 +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 RAA05086; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:29:23 +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 RAA09538; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:32:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131172559.00a74ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:35:23 +0100 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <00c401c1aa6e$e3040320$ad053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> <002901c1aa33$c529f5c0$b141e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:07 31/01/2002 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >As said before the new board contained 52 cards when laid on the table. A >diamond king of THE foregoing board was still on the table and not restored >to the pocket of that board. (Law7C) Established fact. >Usually the player concerned is busily talking the play of the foregoing >board, whereby the new hand is taken from the pocket and put on the table. >The player than orders his hand by taking a card one after another in his >hand. The diamond king will thusly be added to the hand of the player. Maybe >later as a forgotten card. >Question: Must the ruling be based on Law 13 or has the diamond king to be >considered as a pokemon picture, to be removed from the hand whereupon play >continues? AG : good question. If you were to disallow the play of any board containing 53 cards, on L13 grounds, you have to disallow the play of a board which would consist of 52 bridge cards, one of each, plus a Magic card which for some reason made it to a player's hand (what about Mind Ravel when engeneering a squeeze ?). Yet, if the player overbid because he held a Magic card (Delusions of Grandeur ?), he would surely keep his result, whether good (Guardian Angel ?) or bad. The same has to be true here, because the second King is as much of a foreign body as the Magic card. 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 Feb 1 04:05:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VH4nL08754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 04:04:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VH4aH08724 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 04:04:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d441.iae.nl [212.61.5.187]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 059962116B for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:55:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000201c1aa77$fd161ec0$bb053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:23:33 +0100 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 I agree with the use of numbers. If 3-3-0-7 is a semi-balanced 1NT, what should be the presentation of a unbalanced 1NT? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > Tjolpe wrote: > > > In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no > > singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > > > > All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > was not. > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. > > 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 Feb 1 05:39:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VIcx211446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:39:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g0VIcpH11442 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:38:52 +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 g0VITvu26089; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:29:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:24:37 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: David Burn , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <20020131133004-r01010800-af694e6b-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 1/31/02 at 3:18 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > was not. > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. I hesitate to disagree on a point of language with someone whose command of it is so much greater than mine (I mean that sincerely, David) but I'm afraid I do disagree. :-) My dictionary defines "semi-" as meaning "partial, partially, somewhat". It is not possible to be "somewhat" pregnant, but it is certainly possible for a hand to be "somewhat" balanced. That said, I agree that policy makers need to clearly define their terms, or to use numbers. 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 Feb 1 05:40:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VIekF11458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:40:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f70.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VIedH11454 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:40:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:31:41 -0800 Received: from 172.142.76.122 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:31:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.76.122] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:31:41 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2002 18:31:41.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[8709C020:01C1AA85] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Then for the curious, the average # of cards per suit is 3.25 and the standard deviation of cards per suit of a 5422- or 4441-hand is 1.5. All other hands with singletons or voids and 2227- and 2236-hands have a higher st.dev. The remaining hands have lower. I'm not certain if this is a good or bad idea either for playing or for regulation, but I suspect GIB effectively uses a similarly styled definition when bidding. -Todd >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:18:37 -0000 > >Tjolpe wrote: > > > In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no > > singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > > > > All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > >I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half >was not. > >In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >"semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. > >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/ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 05:52:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VIpuT13070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:51:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VIpkH13044 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:51:47 +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 SAA16454 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:42:48 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]_EBL_Systems_Policy_-_1NT_with_a?= singleton MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:42:52 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 31.01.2002 18:42:48, Serialize complete at 31.01.2002 18:42:48 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 g0VIpmH13050 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 31/01/02 13:35 Pour : , cc : Objet : Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 31 January 2002 10:11 Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. > +=+ You surprise me. I would not think 'semi-balanced' contemplates a singleton or void. Yet another case where long-standing practices unrecognized by new generations call for interpretations to be laid down. However, the need to disclose all such understandings is clear enough. ~ G ~ +=+ *** in France FFB uses the same term of "balanced or semi-balanced" in their definition of the equivalent of brown sticker conventions. According to the french regulations, as in ebl, an opening bid of 1NT is a BSC if not a strong hand (more than 17HCP) or a "balanced or semi-balanced hand within the range 10-17 HCP" but there is a footnote saying "balanced or semi-balanced means: no void, no singleton, no more than 2 doubletons". Incidentally, until last year, a system with a 1NT opening non conforming to this definition was classified HUM. jp rocafort *** __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 06:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VJ4qi15080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:04:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g0VJ4hH15061 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:04:44 +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 g0VItku07704 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:55:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:40:24 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020131135552-r01010800-4f14beb0-0904-0109@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 1/31/02 at 4:07 PM, B.Schelen@iae.nl (Ben Schelen) wrote: > Question: Must the ruling be based on Law 13 or has the diamond king to be > considered as a pokemon picture, to be removed from the hand whereupon play > continues? Law 13 starts with the clause "When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards..." Given that the TD has established that the extra DK was *not* in a pocket of this board, Law 13 does not apply. 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 Feb 1 07:56:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VKu1G21458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:56:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VKtrH21454 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:55:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1BB2VFAA; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:47:02 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:03:30 -0600 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Bridge Laws From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> From: "Damian Hassan" > >> > Now I am confused! Of course deficient has >> > something to do with defect. Both words are >> > from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According >> > to the OED, both words have a history of >> > similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions >> > as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, >> > blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage >> > Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective >> > Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. >> > >> +=+ Yes, but in the sense of shortage or deficit; >> not in all the senses of 'defect'. >> Defects, flaws, of excess are not included >> in the meaning of 'deficient'. ~ G ~ +=+ > >I agree with David and Damian: it _is_ confusing, in particular since no >TD wants to carry the OED around and check every word before each ruling. > >So, for the 2007 laws, can we simply replace "deficient" by "less than 13 >cards"? > >(And judging from the length of this discussion, a law 14-bis, dealing >with "extra cards", seems useful addition as well). > >Henk > Let it say "fewer than 13 cards." REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 08:22:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VLMA321486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:22:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g0VLM4H21481 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:22:04 +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 IAA23767 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:24:07 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:11:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:07:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/02/2002 08:12:10 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In-Reply-To: <000801c1a9e5$1c5ac440$7733e150@dodona> >Grattan wrote: > >> The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT >> openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and >> this implies that there should be disclosure of any >> agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. > >I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and >5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). >I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. > >Tim In the "Two times diamond king" thread, Henk suggested replacing the word "deficient" with the clearer expression "less than 13 cards". This 1NT alerting policy again suffers from using an ambiguously defined term - "balanced or semi-balanced". If it was the policy makers' intention that 1NT openings which could contain a singleton or void should be alerted, why not simply say so in the regulation? 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 Feb 1 09:05:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VM4Wu26924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:04:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VM4NH26895 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:04:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16WPB4-0003GA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:55:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020131163846.00b09640@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:55:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <000201c1aa77$fd161ec0$bb053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0VM4PH26898 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:23 AM 1/31/02, Ben wrote: >I agree with the use of numbers. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:18 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > > Tjolpe wrote: > > > > > In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, > i.e. no > > > singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > > > > > > All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > > > > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > > was not. > > > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. While it's hard to argue against the notion that numbers are superior to nebulously defined terms -- especially ones that as literate a writer as David considers to be meaningless -- they still don't tell the whole story. In my circles, an opening 1NT (15-17) on x/AQx/AJxxx/KQxx would be unusual enough to be thought of as a psych, and would certainly raise a few eyebrows. OTOH, opening 1NT on K/AQx/AJxx/Qxxxx would be a routine, unremarkable action. To me, this makes a good deal of "bridge sense", and suggests that the question of what constitutes a "normal" 1NT opening is more than a matter of, for example, whether you do or you don't with 5-4-3-1 hands. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 1 09:18:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VMHtr29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (sproxy.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0VMHkH29120 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22232 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jan 2002 22:08:48 -0000 Received: from pd954cf91.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.207.145) by mail.gmx.net (mp016-rz3) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 22:08:48 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:07:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Message-ID: <3C59CE1C.24358.363EA12@localhost> References: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-reply-to: <20020131133004-r01010800-af694e6b-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 31 Jan 2002, at 13:24, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 1/31/02 at 3:18 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > > > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > > was not. > > > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. > > I hesitate to disagree on a point of language with someone whose command of it > is so much greater than mine (I mean that sincerely, David) but I'm afraid I do > disagree. :-) > > My dictionary defines "semi-" as meaning "partial, partially, somewhat". It is > not possible to be "somewhat" pregnant, but it is certainly possible for a hand > to be "somewhat" balanced. That said, I agree that policy makers need to clearly > define their terms, or to use numbers. Semi as latin word is exactly *half*, for instance a semifinal is not a somewhat final. The comment by Mr. Burn is absolutely delicious 3-3 is the balanced half and 0-7 the unbalanced half, so semi-balanced. Thx for this nice example of dry english humor :) your stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 09:19:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VMJ1e29320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:19:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VMIrH29299 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:18:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1BB2V3LW; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:10:01 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004901c1a746$226554a0$4a033dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:26:34 -0600 To: "Ben Schelen" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The auction resulted in a game. >The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond >king is played from dummy followed by a small diamond and another diamond >king by declarer. It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the >diamond king belongs to a forgoing board. >The TD is summoned. >Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. >If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. > >Your reaction please. > >Ben More of a management matter than a laws matter, but, this whole thread shows the importance of making sure neighboring boards have different backs on the cards. One is less likely to pick up the odd card left on the table if it really looks different from the rest. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 11:20:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g110JKv20651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:19:20 +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 g110JBH20632 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:19:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16WRHV-0006yh-0C; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:10:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:13:42 +0000 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: Bridge Laws From: Steve Wright Reply-To: Steve Wright Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S () Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> From: "Damian Hassan" > >> > Now I am confused! Of course deficient has >> > something to do with defect. Both words are >> > from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According >> > to the OED, both words have a history of >> > similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions >> > as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, >> > blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage >> > Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective >> > Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. >> > >> +=+ Yes, but in the sense of shortage or deficit; >> not in all the senses of 'defect'. >> Defects, flaws, of excess are not included >> in the meaning of 'deficient'. ~ G ~ +=+ > >I agree with David and Damian: it _is_ confusing, in particular since no >TD wants to carry the OED around and check every word before each ruling. > >So, for the 2007 laws, can we simply replace "deficient" by "less than 13 >cards"? > >(And judging from the length of this discussion, a law 14-bis, dealing >with "extra cards", seems useful addition as well). > >Henk > On a similar note, how about changing the phrases "bid of out rotation" and "pass out of rotation" to be "bid out of turn" and "pass out of turn"? I've never heard a player use the word "rotation" at the table. Even the abbreviations we use on this mailing list are BOOT and POOT. The first time I had to look up this up in the law book I was confused for over a minute as I couldn't find "Bid out of turn" in the index. -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 11:57:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g110vVx27192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:57:31 +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 g110vMH27160 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:57:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-66-45.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.66.45] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16WRsQ-0002ra-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c1aab9$f0c81280$2d427ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:46:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > I've never heard a player use the word "rotation" at the table. Even the > abbreviations we use on this mailing list are BOOT and POOT. That is because we use the words "boor" and "poor" in other contexts. 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 Feb 1 12:14:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g111Da900366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:13:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (thorium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g111DPH00334 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:13:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:03:32 +0800 Received: from mx14.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.114]) by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 04:55:44 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx14.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g0VKtfHE016136 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 04:55:42 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VKu1G21458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:56:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VKtrH21454 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:55:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1BB2VFAA; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:47:02 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:03:30 -0600 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Bridge Laws From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> From: "Damian Hassan" > >> > Now I am confused! Of course deficient has >> > something to do with defect. Both words are >> > from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According >> > to the OED, both words have a history of >> > similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions >> > as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, >> > blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage >> > Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective >> > Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. >> > >> +=+ Yes, but in the sense of shortage or deficit; >> not in all the senses of 'defect'. >> Defects, flaws, of excess are not included >> in the meaning of 'deficient'. ~ G ~ +=+ > >I agree with David and Damian: it _is_ confusing, in particular since no >TD wants to carry the OED around and check every word before each ruling. > >So, for the 2007 laws, can we simply replace "deficient" by "less than 13 >cards"? > >(And judging from the length of this discussion, a law 14-bis, dealing >with "extra cards", seems useful addition as well). > >Henk > Let it say "fewer than 13 cards." REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 13:35:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g112YQb16296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:27 +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 g112Y6H16238 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:10 +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 16WTO3-000FTW-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:25:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:18:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: <000801c1a9e5$1c5ac440$7733e150@dodona> >Grattan wrote: > >> The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT >> openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and >> this implies that there should be disclosure of any >> agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. > >I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and >5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). >I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. For many years various authorities used semi-balanced to describe 5332, 5422 and 6322. However, sometime around thirty years ago 5332 moved over to balanced. I have never heard of anyone describing 4441 or 5431 or 6331 as semi- balanced: I have only ever understood them to be unbalanced. In England, of course, we have the Orange book, and so a definition of semi-balanced [9.3.1], which is 'a hand with no seven-card or longer suit, nor a singleton or void.' Burn, for obvious [I trust] reasons, considers 7033 as "semi- balanced". :) -- 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 Feb 1 13:35:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g112YOw16293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g112Y6H16237 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:09 +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 16WTO3-000FTV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:25:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:11:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> <002901c1aa33$c529f5c0$b141e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002901c1aa33$c529f5c0$b141e150@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" >> Our general approach is to try to judge what >> happened, not to make unjustified assumptions. >> If we wanted to make unjustified assumptions, >> of course, we would assume the card was added >> after the cards were taken from the board, since >> that is considerably more likely. But why should >> we? Why should we not do our job and investigate? >+=+ It was not my contention that the Director >should not seek to establish facts. However, in a case >like this it can be difficult to get a clear picture - the >players may well not know precisely what happened; a >card lying loose may have been "put back" into the >board, for example, but as it happens into the wrong >board. In this correspondence I have twice seen it >said that Law 13 refers to a board that arrives at >the table with a defective hand; those who have said >this should read the Law again. If there were 14 cards >in the hand when he took it from the slot this meets >the condition in the Law. It is open to a Director who >fails to establish clearly what did happen to deem >that there may have been 14 cards in the hand when >the player lifted it from the board, no matter how or >when the fourteenth arrived there. Such a decision is >not 'unjustified' and allows the Director to make a >ruling based upon Law 13. Of course a TD could. However, the problem with that is that you are now advising us to rule that the less likely scenario has happened rather than the more likely scenario, which I am still unhappy with, both as a specific approach in this case, and a general case. It is sharply at variance with what the EBU tells its TDs in training, for example. Our advice is to get as much info as possible, and then make a judgement, not to work on pre-conceived notions. But I consider the possibility of not knowing when the card was added is pretty low. The card has got to have come from somewhere, and experience [and possibly common sense] suggest that is has come out of another board in at least 95% of cases. Once you find out whether that board is at the previous table [when L13 becomes fairly obvious] or at this table [when L13 becomes most unlikely] you are nearly there. Why do I think it is more likely to be at this table? Consider the two scenarios. [1] A card is left on a table, added accidentally to a hand, not noticed, not noticed when the hand is put away in the board. When it is received the player fails to count the cards correctly, fails to notice his shape is unusual and carries on. [2] A card is left on a table, added accidentally to a hand and the player fails to notice his shape is unusual and carries on. Do you really believe [1] is more likely? -- 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 Feb 1 13:35:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g112YXB16316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (tellurium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g112YHH16274 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:16:04 +0800 Received: from mx11.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.121]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:01:11 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx11.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g0VM1AOX017389 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:01:11 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VM4Wu26924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:04:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VM4NH26895 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:04:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16WPB4-0003GA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:55:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020131163846.00b09640@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:55:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <000201c1aa77$fd161ec0$bb053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0VM4PH26898 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:23 AM 1/31/02, Ben wrote: >I agree with the use of numbers. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:18 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > > Tjolpe wrote: > > > > > In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, > i.e. no > > > singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. > > > > > > All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > > > > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > > was not. > > > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. While it's hard to argue against the notion that numbers are superior to nebulously defined terms -- especially ones that as literate a writer as David considers to be meaningless -- they still don't tell the whole story. In my circles, an opening 1NT (15-17) on x/AQx/AJxxx/KQxx would be unusual enough to be thought of as a psych, and would certainly raise a few eyebrows. OTOH, opening 1NT on K/AQx/AJxx/Qxxxx would be a routine, unremarkable action. To me, this makes a good deal of "bridge sense", and suggests that the question of what constitutes a "normal" 1NT opening is more than a matter of, for example, whether you do or you don't with 5-4-3-1 hands. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Fri Feb 1 13:54:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g112sZF19918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:54:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (tellurium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g112sPH19901 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:54:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:34:11 +0800 Received: from mx11.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.121]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:14:16 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx11.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g0VMEFOX026820 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:14:16 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VMHtr29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (sproxy.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0VMHkH29120 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22232 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jan 2002 22:08:48 -0000 Received: from pd954cf91.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.207.145) by mail.gmx.net (mp016-rz3) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 22:08:48 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:07:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Message-ID: <3C59CE1C.24358.363EA12@localhost> References: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-reply-to: <20020131133004-r01010800-af694e6b-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 31 Jan 2002, at 13:24, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 1/31/02 at 3:18 PM, dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) wrote: > > > I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a > > 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half > > was not. > > > > In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean > > anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write > > "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about > > distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. > > I hesitate to disagree on a point of language with someone whose command of it > is so much greater than mine (I mean that sincerely, David) but I'm afraid I do > disagree. :-) > > My dictionary defines "semi-" as meaning "partial, partially, somewhat". It is > not possible to be "somewhat" pregnant, but it is certainly possible for a hand > to be "somewhat" balanced. That said, I agree that policy makers need to clearly > define their terms, or to use numbers. Semi as latin word is exactly *half*, for instance a semifinal is not a somewhat final. The comment by Mr. Burn is absolutely delicious 3-3 is the balanced half and 0-7 the unbalanced half, so semi-balanced. Thx for this nice example of dry english humor :) your 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 Fri Feb 1 13:56:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g112txg20159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:55:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (tellurium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g112tmH20127 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:55:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:34:28 +0800 Received: from mx17.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.117]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:15:01 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx17.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g0VMF0Ws009407 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:15:02 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VMJ1e29320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:19:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VMIrH29299 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:18:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1BB2V3LW; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:10:01 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004901c1a746$226554a0$4a033dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:26:34 -0600 To: "Ben Schelen" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The auction resulted in a game. >The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond >king is played from dummy followed by a small diamond and another diamond >king by declarer. It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the >diamond king belongs to a forgoing board. >The TD is summoned. >Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. >If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. > >Your reaction please. > >Ben More of a management matter than a laws matter, but, this whole thread shows the importance of making sure neighboring boards have different backs on the cards. One is less likely to pick up the odd card left on the table if it really looks different from the rest. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 18:32:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g117VVY14310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:31:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.35]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g117VNH14280 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:31:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:22:26 -0800 Received: from 172.136.65.89 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:22:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.136.65.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: jkljkl@gmx.de, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:22:24 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 07:22:26.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[32E715D0:01C1AAF1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "stefan filonardi" >Semi as latin word is exactly *half*, for instance a semifinal >is not a somewhat final. Just off the top of my head, there's some history in English for other uses. Semisweet chocolate is somewhat sweet. semisoft cheeses, though this might be a wholey American term. A semitone in music (tempered scale) is 2^1/12 times greater the frequency than the last note. The semitonic is a specific note related to the key and is not half the tonic. semivowels, though the French take 2 whole vowel letters to represent one of them (w=ou). >The comment by Mr. Burn is absolutely delicious 3-3 is the >balanced half and 0-7 the unbalanced half, so semi-balanced. > >Thx for this nice example of dry english humor :) > >your stefan It is funny, yes. Jargon is often deliciously absurd that way. -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 Fri Feb 1 18:41:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g117fO715873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g117f9H15834 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.87.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WY6y-000FnO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:27:52 +0000 Message-ID: <003901c1aaf2$ec3e54c0$af57e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:14:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Ben Schelen" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > More of a management matter than a laws matter, but, > this whole thread shows the importance of making sure > neighboring boards have different backs on the cards. > One is less likely to pick up the odd card left on the > table if it really looks different from the rest. > +=+ Indeed, the suggestion is, perhaps, that as many different backs are desirable as there are boards in a set. This could even be extended to a different back for every board in use? ~ 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 Feb 1 18:41:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g117fQb15876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:26 +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-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 g117fBH15842 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.87.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WY6z-000FnO-00; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:27:54 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01c1aaf2$ed4ae2c0$af57e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "stefan filonardi" , References: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3C59CE1C.24358.363EA12@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:24:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > The comment by Mr. Burn is absolutely delicious 3-3 is the > balanced half and 0-7 the unbalanced half, so semi-balanced. > +=+ Reading this comment I am driven to a realisation that by the same model many of our contributions to this thread (and others) are 'semi-balanced'. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 18:41:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g117fS215879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g117fDH15854 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:41:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.87.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WY71-000FnO-00; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 07:27:56 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c1aaf2$ee46a7e0$af57e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:32:48 -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 > In England, of course, we have the Orange book, and so > a definition of semi-balanced [9.3.1], which is > > 'a hand with no seven-card or longer suit, nor a singleton > or void.' > > Burn, for obvious [I trust] reasons, considers 7033 as > "semi-balanced". :) > +=+ Where a 'bridge' rather than a dictionary definition is needed for a word, regulation can provide it if the law book does not. Otherwise the deficiency :-) is usually supplied by precedent. ~ 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 Feb 1 21:14:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11ADRZ08596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:13:27 +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 (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11ADHH08571 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:13:18 +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 g11A3pD14737; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:03:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king 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: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:03:47 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 02/01/2002 11:03:50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote in response to Grattan Endicott: ...... (snip) >>It is open to a Director who >>fails to establish clearly what did happen to deem >>that there may have been 14 cards in the hand when >>the player lifted it from the board, no matter how or >>when the fourteenth arrived there. Such a decision is >>not 'unjustified' and allows the Director to make a >>ruling based upon Law 13. > Of course a TD could. However, the problem with that is that you are >now advising us to rule that the less likely scenario has happened >rather than the more likely scenario, which I am still unhappy with, >both as a specific approach in this case, and a general case. It is >sharply at variance with what the EBU tells its TDs in training, for >example. Our advice is to get as much info as possible, and then make a >judgement, not to work on pre-conceived notions. > But I consider the possibility of not knowing when the card was added >is pretty low. The card has got to have come from somewhere, and >experience [and possibly common sense] suggest that is has come out of >another board in at least 95% of cases. Once you find out whether that >board is at the previous table [when L13 becomes fairly obvious] or at >this table [when L13 becomes most unlikely] you are nearly there. > Why do I think it is more likely to be at this table? Consider the >two scenarios. >[1] A card is left on a table, added accidentally to a hand, not >noticed, not noticed when the hand is put away in the board. When it is >received the player fails to count the cards correctly, fails to notice >his shape is unusual and carries on. >[2] A card is left on a table, added accidentally to a hand and the >player fails to notice his shape is unusual and carries on. > Do you really believe [1] is more likely? My own experience is in fact yes! [1] At the end of the round a player notices an extraneous card: "Shit, I must have lost that card" - he takes it and puts it back into the last board played without double checking. (No time to waste) [2] While looking at his hand a player notices an extraneous card on the table, on the floor or somewhere near, but now it is more likely that he counts his cards again before restoring that extra card to the hand he is about to play. And of course we have the correct procedure: [3] "Director! We found an extra card here" 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 Feb 1 21:27:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11AQsO11217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:26:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11AQkH11187 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:26:46 +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 LAA20364; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:17:14 +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 LAA14083; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:17:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201110935.00a74910@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:21:02 +0100 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , jkljkl@gmx.de, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Re: semi-answer 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 23:22 31/01/2002 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "stefan filonardi" >>Semi as latin word is exactly *half*, for instance a semifinal >>is not a somewhat final. > >Just off the top of my head, there's some history in English for other uses. > >Semisweet chocolate is somewhat sweet. >semisoft cheeses, though this might be a wholey American term. >A semitone in music (tempered scale) is 2^1/12 times greater the frequency >than the last note. The semitonic is a specific note related to the key >and is not half the tonic. >semivowels, though the French take 2 whole vowel letters to represent one >of them (w=ou). AG : semivowels are precisely sounds that are somewhat vocalic. BTW, they're also called semiconsonants. But the French 'ou' is most of the time a plain vowel, resembling the German 'u' and not far from the 'u' in 'pull'. We've got 3 semivowels, w (spelled 'w' or seldom 'ou' or 'u'), y, and consonantic u (sometimes spelled hu). Just a rhetoric question : what do you get when you add bittersweet chocolate into half a tonic and pour it into a flute ? %-P Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 1 21:35:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11AZFZ12507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g11AZ6H12487 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:35:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g11AQB405126 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:26:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020131163846.00b09640@pop.starpower.net> Eric Landau wrote: > In my circles, an opening 1NT (15-17) on x/AQx/AJxxx/KQxx would be > unusual enough to be thought of as a psych, and would certainly raise a > few eyebrows. OTOH, opening 1NT on K/AQx/AJxx/Qxxxx would be a > routine, unremarkable action. Pretty much the same in my circles. To the extent that there is certainly an implicit agreement to open 1NT on the latter hand. Indeed I could nearly be persuaded that it is "balanced". OTOH if I pick up AKQJT,x,KQx,xxxx I start thinking of it as a spade single suiter (it's 150 honours guv). 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 Feb 1 22:21:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11BKgP20843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:20:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11BKWH20819 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:20:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-69-245.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.69.245] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16WbbW-0000UC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:11:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c1ab10$ff802860$f5457ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201110935.00a74910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: semi-answer Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:10:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > Just a rhetoric question : what do you get when you add bittersweet > chocolate into > half a tonic and pour it into a flute ? %-P I don't know. But if you drank it, it wouldn't half make you ill! 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 Feb 1 23:02:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11C2FG22695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:02:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g11C28H22691 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:02:08 +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 MAA03884; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:50:23 +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 MAA15382; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:53:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201125242.00a79150@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:56:25 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:26 1/02/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020131163846.00b09640@pop.starpower.net> >Eric Landau wrote: > > > In my circles, an opening 1NT (15-17) on x/AQx/AJxxx/KQxx would be > > unusual enough to be thought of as a psych, and would certainly raise a > > few eyebrows. OTOH, opening 1NT on K/AQx/AJxx/Qxxxx would be a > > routine, unremarkable action. > >Pretty much the same in my circles. To the extent that there is certainly >an implicit agreement to open 1NT on the latter hand. Indeed I could >nearly be persuaded AG : I'd say you're semi-persuaded. >that it is "balanced". OTOH if I pick up >AKQJT,x,KQx,xxxx I start thinking of it as a spade single suiter (it's >150 honours guv). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 2 00:20:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11DJaQ22728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:19:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g11DJSH22724 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:19:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 29696 invoked by uid 50005); 1 Feb 2002 13:10:33 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4184. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.751673 secs); 01 Feb 2002 13:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Feb 2002 13:10:31 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:10:38 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <6t3l5ug1hi7r2ops9l373guijb13u7ld0c@4ax.com> References: <003901c1aaf2$ec3e54c0$af57e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003901c1aaf2$ec3e54c0$af57e150@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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, 1 Feb 2002 07:14:51 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Indeed, the suggestion is, perhaps, that as >many different backs are desirable as there are boards >in a set. This could even be extended to a different back >for every board in use? ~ G ~ +=+ If you had a different back for every board, it seems obvious that the 'pattern' on the back should be the board number? I'm not a playing card manufacturer, but I did run the computer department for a large custom stationery firm some years back, and given that gave me some idea of costs in the printing industry, I find it difficult to believe that the idea wouldn't be financially viable. 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 Feb 2 03:07:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11G6PF20032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:06:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11G6FH20028 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:06:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6X4P; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:57:21 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201105549.00a89d20@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:57:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131164757.00a60760@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g11G6IH20029 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What is "HAS" status? Thanks, Walt At 05:01 PM 1/31/02 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 15:52 31/01/2002 +0100, Sven-Olov Flodqvist wrote: >>citerar Tim West-meads : >> >> > I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and >> > 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). >> > I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. >> >>In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no >>singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. >> >>All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > >AG : Le Dentu classified 4441 and 5431 as semi-balanced; There seems to be >no official definition of the term. This does not mean that, as David >wished, the word should be crossed out. >I'll use what Mathematicians call an argument of continuity : place all >patterns on a scale of unbalancedness, say from 0 (4333) to 1000 (13-000). >Call hands below some grade 'balanced', call the next bracket >'semi-balanced' if you wish. In French, some make subtle distinctions >between : balancée, équilibrée, répartie (note that 'équilibré' is the >translation for 'balanced' when applying to an object which has found its >equilibrium). >Surely there should be _some_ limit for a 1NT opening, which might be >defined in regulations.You may wish to make provisions for identically >distributed hands to get different grades according to honor placement (eg >bare honor, weak 5-card suit). > >What's important in the NT regulation is that a NT bid will be called >non-artificial (thus avoiding HAS status) when it covers all hands below >some grade in some strength range. If regulations specify a maximal grade, >so be it, but it doesn't seem to be the case in EBL. Else, every >partnership should specify the limit, if it is not classical in the area. > >Best regards, > > Alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 2 03:12:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11GCXc20067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:12:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11GCOH20063 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:12:25 +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 IAA25299; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:03:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200202011603.IAA25299@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: semi-answer In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:21:02 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20020201110935.00a74910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:03:29 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Just a rhetoric question : what do you get when you add bittersweet > chocolate into > half a tonic and pour it into a flute ? %-P One very angry flautist, I suppose. -- 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 Feb 2 06:39:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11JcWi20142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 06:38:32 +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-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 g11JcNH20138 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 06:38:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.32.232] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WjJ1-000EtW-00; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c1ab57$1e4928a0$e820e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201110935.00a74910@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000601c1ab10$ff802860$f5457ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: semi-answer Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:23:00 -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, February 01, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: semi-answer > Alain wrote: > > > Just a rhetoric question : what do you get when you add bittersweet > > chocolate into > > half a tonic and pour it into a flute ? %-P > > I don't know. But if you drank it, it wouldn't half make you ill! > +=+ Flautulence? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 2 09:33:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11MWx809002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:32:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail6.nc.rr.com ([24.93.67.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g11MWoH08978 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:32:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom ([66.57.46.78]) by Mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:23:54 -0500 Message-ID: <002101c1ab6d$f8e00360$4e2e3942@nc.rr.com> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201110935.00a74910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: semi-answer Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:15:35 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sour notes!!?? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Todd Zimnoch" ; ; Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:21 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: semi-answer > At 23:22 31/01/2002 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >>From: "stefan filonardi" > >>Semi as latin word is exactly *half*, for instance a semifinal > >>is not a somewhat final. > > > >Just off the top of my head, there's some history in English for other uses. > > > >Semisweet chocolate is somewhat sweet. > >semisoft cheeses, though this might be a wholey American term. > >A semitone in music (tempered scale) is 2^1/12 times greater the frequency > >than the last note. The semitonic is a specific note related to the key > >and is not half the tonic. > >semivowels, though the French take 2 whole vowel letters to represent one > >of them (w=ou). > > AG : semivowels are precisely sounds that are somewhat vocalic. BTW, > they're also called semiconsonants. > But the French 'ou' is most of the time a plain vowel, resembling the > German 'u' and not far from the 'u' in 'pull'. > We've got 3 semivowels, w (spelled 'w' or seldom 'ou' or 'u'), y, and > consonantic u (sometimes spelled hu). > > Just a rhetoric question : what do you get when you add bittersweet > chocolate into > half a tonic and pour it into a flute ? %-P > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 2 10:55:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11NtD024799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:55:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g11Nt3H24766 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:55:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.31.172] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WnJO-000GRx-00; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:41:42 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c1ab7a$f8865ec0$ac1fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <003901c1aaf2$ec3e54c0$af57e150@dodona> <6t3l5ug1hi7r2ops9l373guijb13u7ld0c@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:46:52 -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: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:14:51 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ Indeed, the suggestion is, perhaps, that as > >many different backs are desirable as there are boards > >in a set. This could even be extended to a different back > >for every board in use? ~ G ~ +=+ > > If you had a different back for every board, it seems obvious > that the 'pattern' on the back should be the board number? > > I'm not a playing card manufacturer, but I did run the computer > department for a large custom stationery firm some years back, > and given that gave me some idea of costs in the printing > industry, I find it difficult to believe that the idea wouldn't > be financially viable. > > > Brian. > +=+ This is actually quite an interesting idea for larger organizations ordering playing cards. I would say the pattern "should incorporate" the board number, or perhaps two numbers 1/17, 2/18 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 Sat Feb 2 14:57:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g123ubI14559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:56:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g123uRH14555 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:56:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g123mDw00970 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:48:13 GMT Message-ID: <24uMyfBTx1W8EwMp@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:26:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <003901c1aaf2$ec3e54c0$af57e150@dodona> <6t3l5ug1hi7r2ops9l373guijb13u7ld0c@4ax.com> <000f01c1ab7a$f8865ec0$ac1fe150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000f01c1ab7a$f8865ec0$ac1fe150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000f01c1ab7a$f8865ec0$ac1fe150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Far worse than prison > >"Gerald Cattermole was sentenced to two years >and nine months at St. Albans Crown Court." >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:10 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:14:51 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >> >+=+ Indeed, the suggestion is, perhaps, that as >> >many different backs are desirable as there are boards >> >in a set. This could even be extended to a different back >> >for every board in use? ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> If you had a different back for every board, it seems obvious >> that the 'pattern' on the back should be the board number? >> >> I'm not a playing card manufacturer, but I did run the computer >> department for a large custom stationery firm some years back, >> and given that gave me some idea of costs in the printing >> industry, I find it difficult to believe that the idea wouldn't >> be financially viable. >> >> >> Brian. >> >+=+ This is actually quite an interesting idea for larger >organizations ordering playing cards. I would say >the pattern "should incorporate" the board number, or >perhaps two numbers 1/17, 2/18 etc. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It'd be a disaster for a duplimate operator > -- 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 Feb 3 02:10:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12F9gQ27942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:09:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g12F9XH27915 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:09:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA22687 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02038 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:00:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:00:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202021500.KAA02038@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ This is actually quite an interesting idea for larger > organizations ordering playing cards. I would say > the pattern "should incorporate" the board number, or > perhaps two numbers 1/17, 2/18 etc. Aren't packs normally bought in dozens? If so, three board numbers (1/13/25, 2/14/26...) would be the natural way to go, although I agree that only two would be better. Selling in units of 18 shouldn't be a problem if the packs are custom anyway. The downside of board numbers is that if a pack gets damaged, it might be awkward to replace, but I suppose replacing with an unmarked back would be good enough. By the time more than a few packs with unmarked backs are in use, it's probably time to replace the whole set. Whatever you do, print the numbers _twice_, right side up and upside down! Make sure the backs look the same no matter which way up the cards are held. Otherwise you have handed the dishonest an easy way to signal to partner. I don't suppose many people would actually do so, but why make it so easy? Another idea is to write the board number on the _front_ of each card. This is a lot of labor, and players might find it distracting, but if there's a club where missing or extra cards are common, it might be worth thinking about. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 3 02:27:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12FRWM01349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:27:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g12FRJH01314 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:27:20 +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 16X1vn-000Cq9-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:18:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 02:07:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: <001501c1aa64$525d9200$7449e150@pacific> >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ You surprise me. I would not think 'semi-balanced' >> contemplates a singleton or void. Yet another case >> where long-standing practices unrecognized by >> new generations call for interpretations to be laid >> down. However, the need to disclose all such >> understandings is clear enough. ~ G ~ +=+ > >No problem about disclosure, there's plenty of space next to 1NT on the >CC (though I might have gotten the alert status wrong). I arrived at my >conclusion by starting with the 3 balanced patterns and making "one card >shifts". It just felt wrong that moving a single card could change a hand >from "balanced" to "unbalanced". > >I agree with DB that it is better to use numbers rather than (or in >addition to) words. Section 9.3.1 of the OB is indeed unambiguous as >brambledown pointed out - I only got as far as 5.3.1(b) where it is clear >that even though 1NT which may contain a singleton is not a "9.3.1 Natural >NT bid" it is considered natural *for alerting purposes*. > >A bit confusing that! I think you are wrong. Perhaps you could give an example. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 3 02:27:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12FRXE01352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:27:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g12FRJH01313 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:27:20 +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 16X1vn-000Cq8-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:18:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 02:03:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <200201311452.g0VEq5B24160@d1o270.telia.com> <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004a01c1aa6a$8fafc140$656f7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g12FRMH01324 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Tjolpe wrote: > >> In my opinion a semibalanced hand is just a semibalanced hand, i.e. no >> singleton. I would even accept 7222 as semibalanced. >> >> All händs with a singelton or void are unbalanced, one would think? > >I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other half >was not. > >In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >"semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. Pregnant is a word with a clear definition [ok, fairly clear] while semi-pregnant is not. Balanced and semi-balanced are no different from pregnant: they are both arbitrary definitions, originally produced by custom+practice and teaching of self-appointed authorities. I see no reason why balanced should be accepted, and semi-balanced not. As for suggesting it cannot mean anything, why not? Of course, for safety in system definition, the RA should add a definition of such terms if they are to use them, which the EBU has done. But it seems not unreasonable to write regulations in something the reader might find normal language. -- 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 Feb 3 05:22:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12IIE400582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:18:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g12II4H00561 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:18:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-160.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.160]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 74F3F54AD8 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:09:07 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:05:45 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Todd Zimnoch writes: > Then for the curious, the average # of cards per suit is 3.25 and the > standard deviation of cards per suit of a 5422- or 4441-hand is 1.5. > All other hands with singletons or voids and 2227- and 2236-hands > have a higher st.dev. The remaining hands have lower. This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions (accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. I have used 'population' SDs rather than Todd's 'sample' SDs which I think must be correct, although I am not a statistician per se. Relatively, it makes no difference - mine are SQRT(3/4) = 86.6% of his. 4 3 3 3 0.433 4 4 3 2 0.829 5 3 3 2 1.090 5 4 2 2 1.299 4 4 4 1 1.299 5 4 3 1 1.479 6 3 2 2 1.639 6 3 3 1 1.785 5 5 2 1 1.785 6 4 2 1 1.920 5 4 4 0 1.920 5 5 3 0 2.046 6 4 3 0 2.165 7 2 2 2 2.165 7 3 2 1 2.278 There is no argument about the EBU's 'balanced three' which head the list. However 6322, which (together with 5422) the EBU defines as 'semi-balanced' is not as balanced as either 4441 or 5431. (DB's 7330 ranks 19th out of 39 with an index of 2.872!) To our non-EBU friends it may not be clear from this thread, that in the EBU even at OB Level 4 a 1NT opening may not, by agreement, be opened with a singleton (unless it is artificial, 19+, permitted at L3 & above). It must conform to OB 12.5.3 and must therefore be (a) balanced (4333, 4432 or 5332) or (b) balanced or semi-balanced (5422 or 6332). Note to anyone concerned with EBU OB Regs: We are allowed an opening 2N "that on occasion may contain a singleton" (OB 12.7.1(b)) (not alertable -OB 5.4.4(j), but must be mentioned on CC). Isn't there much to be said for extending this approach to a 1NT opening? Almost everyone occasionally opens 1NT with a singleton. It is inevitably referred to the TD and we are immediately into the deviation/psyche/frequency/disclosure areas. If my opponents want to open 1NT with an appropriate range 4441, I would far rather they did it honestly with full disclosure than sneak it in under the guise of a deviation/psyche as at present ("my partner was as surprised as you" - yeah, yeah). 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 Feb 3 05:22:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12IKwa01072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:20:58 +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 (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g12IKlH01053 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:20:48 +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 g12IB8Y21129; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:11:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: Steve Willner 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, 2 Feb 2002 19:11:05 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 02/02/2002 19:11:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some people have come up with the idea that the back side of cards should include some kind of a "serial number" for instance equal to the board number (1-16/17-32): quoting from one of them: >Aren't packs normally bought in dozens? If so, three board numbers >(1/13/25, 2/14/26...) would be the natural way to go, although I agree >that only two would be better. Selling in units of 18 shouldn't be a >problem if the packs are custom anyway. >The downside of board numbers is that if a pack gets damaged, it might >be awkward to replace, but I suppose replacing with an unmarked back >would be good enough. By the time more than a few packs with unmarked >backs are in use, it's probably time to replace the whole set. unquote. If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they would immediately know that this is a disasterous idea. 1: The card pack "hopper" in a machine typically holds 2 packs which means that the pack I remove from one board is sorted and placed into the third following board in the pile. Thus any attempt to have the back number matching the board is deemed in advance to fail. And without a match we shall have ever so many complaints from players that this must be the wrong board because the numbers do not match. 2: Whenever a card crashes I shall have to replace typically one, and seldom more than three cards from a spare supply. Today I have to keep two supplys, one for red and one for blue backs. Imagine what it means keeping 12 or 16 different spare supplys. Usually we find the needed card in the spares, but whenever the supply happens to have run out of the particular card we need then we have to open a new pack and get it from there. Replacing a whole set? Is he kidding? I am still processing the cards we bought back in 1991 having replaced less than 5% of the cards (I actually believe less than 2%, but let me be on the safe side). And the reason is NOT that the cards have been little used! 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 Feb 3 05:35:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12IYop03675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:34:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g12IYgH03657 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:34:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-196.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.196]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 60A9A54A8E for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:25:46 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:22:24 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200202021500.KAA02038@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ This is actually quite an interesting idea for larger >> organizations ordering playing cards. I would say >> the pattern "should incorporate" the board number, or >> perhaps two numbers 1/17, 2/18 etc. > >Aren't packs normally bought in dozens? If so, three board numbers >(1/13/25, 2/14/26...) would be the natural way to go, although I agree >that only two would be better. Selling in units of 18 shouldn't be a >problem if the packs are custom anyway. No, Grattan's arrangement is better, then 1/17 can have green backs, 4/20 red backs etc to indicate vulnerability! {:-)) 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 Feb 3 07:04:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12K4GG20816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 07:04:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g12K47H20796 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 07:04:07 +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 g12JtCt24402 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:55:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c1ac23$80587c40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Proper Adjustment in San Bernardino! Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:54:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A ruling at my table, unfavorable to me, was welcomed by me as illustrating a bridge adjudication principle: The identity of the pairs should not be taken into account when making a ruling. San Bernardino regional senior stratified (A, B, and C strata pairs) pair event S- J765 H- 1083 D- J10873 C- 3 S- 42 S- AQ1083 H- A2 H- KQJ94 D- AK942 D- 5 C- Q765 C- J9 S- K9 H- 765 D- Q6 C- AK10842 For reasons both embarrassing and unimportant, South's actual contract of 3C doubled down a bunch was changed to 3NT by me (West). Then the TD, who knew I could play bridge and that N/S were not strong, had to decide on an adjusted score for each side. Taking no account of "the class of players involved," she assigned scores of +/-400. Now, I could make an overtrick in my sleep against the N/S pair, but the ruling delighted me. The TD involved, who not long ago would have awarded avg- to us and avg+ to N/S, told me she had to assume a generic West for this event in place of me. Why? Because it would not be fair to give me a score that others in my place would not get. Lacking a crystal ball, she had no way to judge what every pair in the room would be capable, or incapable, of doing. That being so, she considers that every player in the event is of equal ability. Was it at all probable that a generic West in this lower-level event would miss the endplay? Yes, obviously. Was it at all probable that a generic South would discard a spade early, luring that generic West into a spade finesse (or "Strouse Endplay") at the end for down one? No, obviously. Ruling correct. The case would have been more difficult in a high-level event, with 3NT made on the nose highly improbable for two generic pairs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- Strouse Endplay: You throw them in and they stay in. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 3 07:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12KM5Q24371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 07:22:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g12KLvH24348 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 07:21:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu ([68.55.147.239]) by femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20020202201301.HGFG14936.femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu> for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:13:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020202133641.00a3b870@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 13:37:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <200202021500.KAA02038@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 10:00 AM 2/2/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Whatever you do, print the numbers _twice_, right side up and upside >down! Make sure the backs look the same no matter which way up the >cards are held. Otherwise you have handed the dishonest an easy way to >signal to partner. I don't suppose many people would actually do so, >but why make it so easy? Remarkably, the ACBL doesn't do this on its current cards; ACBL-standard cards have the ACBL logo on the back, with a spade that can be pointed up or 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 Sun Feb 3 10:31:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g12NUPi29640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:30:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g12NUHH29623 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:30:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2091 invoked by uid 504); 2 Feb 2002 23:16:04 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.409099 secs); 02 Feb 2002 23:16:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.178) by 0 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2002 23:16:03 -0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:20:50 +1300 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 Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: AKQJ xxx xxx xxx In case you are wondering there is a laws question to follow. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 3 11:15:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g130FPm07793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:15:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g130FFH07760 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:15:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27905 invoked by uid 50005); 3 Feb 2002 00:05:25 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4183. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.760195 secs); 03 Feb 2002 00:05:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.105]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Feb 2002 00:05:24 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:06:21 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <0ivo5u8h1kpupitr016h00leu03tugjaip@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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, 2 Feb 2002 19:11:05 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >Some people have come up with the idea that the back side of cards >should include some kind of a "serial number" for instance equal to >the board number (1-16/17-32): > >quoting from one of them: >>Aren't packs normally bought in dozens? If so, three board numbers >>(1/13/25, 2/14/26...) would be the natural way to go, although I agree >>that only two would be better. Selling in units of 18 shouldn't be a >>problem if the packs are custom anyway. > >>The downside of board numbers is that if a pack gets damaged, it might >>be awkward to replace, but I suppose replacing with an unmarked back >>would be good enough. By the time more than a few packs with unmarked >>backs are in use, it's probably time to replace the whole set. >unquote. > >If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they would >immediately know that this is a disasterous idea. > I've never even seen a duplication machine, let alone operated one - but did I miss something? When did anyone suggest that clubs would HAVE to buy these cards, or that standard cards (or whatever the duplication machine uses) would no longer be available? Unless and until duplication machines are universally used, I can't see why the cards with board numbers on the backs can't be used by those clubs who still deal boards manually. 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 Feb 3 11:49:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g130mwa14479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:48:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g130mnH14459 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:48:50 +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 g130dst07728 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 16:39:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009401c1ac4b$271b26a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 16:29:59 -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 Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > > AKQJ > xxx > xxx > xxx Yes, matchpoints only > > In case you are wondering there is a laws question to follow. > 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 Feb 3 11:59:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g130x8J16500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:59:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g130wwH16470 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:58:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.35.227]) by fep2.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020203004457.HEFX9896.fep2@zshilon>; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:44:57 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Wayne Burrows" , Subject: RE: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:47:46 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" 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: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We play 2/1 with Drury. I would open 1spade with this. zvika -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:21 AM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Hi Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: AKQJ xxx xxx xxx In case you are wondering there is a laws question to follow. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 3 12:45:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g131jFm25486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:45:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g131j5H25461 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:45:06 +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 16XBZc-00073F-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:36:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:06:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 >> Todd Zimnoch writes: > >> Then for the curious, the average # of cards per suit is 3.25 and the >> standard deviation of cards per suit of a 5422- or 4441-hand is 1.5. >> All other hands with singletons or voids and 2227- and 2236-hands >> have a higher st.dev. The remaining hands have lower. > >This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', >giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. >Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions >(accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. I do not see what this has to do with balanced-ness: it seems to be a discussion of frequency. >I have used 'population' SDs rather than Todd's 'sample' SDs which I think >must be correct, although I am not a statistician per se. Relatively, it >makes no difference - mine are SQRT(3/4) = 86.6% of his. > > 4 3 3 3 0.433 > 4 4 3 2 0.829 > 5 3 3 2 1.090 > 5 4 2 2 1.299 > 4 4 4 1 1.299 > 5 4 3 1 1.479 > 6 3 2 2 1.639 > 6 3 3 1 1.785 > 5 5 2 1 1.785 > 6 4 2 1 1.920 > 5 4 4 0 1.920 > 5 5 3 0 2.046 > 6 4 3 0 2.165 > 7 2 2 2 2.165 > 7 3 2 1 2.278 > >There is no argument about the EBU's 'balanced three' which head the list. >However 6322, which (together with 5422) the EBU defines as 'semi-balanced' >is not as balanced as either 4441 or 5431. 6322 is more balanced in the popular view, balanced and frequent being totally different concepts. -- 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 Feb 3 21:52:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13Apk711564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:51:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g13ApaH11527 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:51:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 16354 invoked by uid 50005); 3 Feb 2002 10:41:45 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4183. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.300739 secs); 03 Feb 2002 10:41:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.105]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Feb 2002 10:41:44 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:42:42 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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, 3 Feb 2002 12:20:50 +1300, Wayne wrote: >Hi > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > >AKQJ >xxx >xxx >xxx > You seem to be short on replies, Wayne, so although I'm far from expert status, I'll add my answer. Definitely, yes - in two of my regular partnerships this is a first and second seat opener too, but then we're playing aggressive light-opening systems, with the mechanisms to handle opening bids on this sort of hand. Even if playing OKBridge's standard SAYC, I would chuck in a 3rd hand 1S on this if only to direct the lead. 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 Feb 3 22:17:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13BGd214500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:16:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13BGVH14496 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:16:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.69.133] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XKUg-000FIM-00; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 11:07:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:28:06 -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 Grattan Endicott To: "Steve Willner" Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > . > > If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they would > immediately know that this is a disastrous idea. > +=+ Now I would have thought any semi-balanced programmer could design a program for the machine that would identify the (bar-coded) board number on each pack, select the relevant deal. and call for the matchingly bar-coded board to be placed in the machine. How naive of me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 3 23:30:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13CTmP14529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:29:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g13CTdH14525 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:29:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6357 invoked by uid 50005); 3 Feb 2002 12:19:47 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4183. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.31301 secs); 03 Feb 2002 12:19:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.105]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Feb 2002 12:19:46 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 07:20:45 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <7v9q5ukcis8kat7h7rg232l3ibgkustot4@4ax.com> References: <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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, 2 Feb 2002 19:28:06 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >> If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they >would >> immediately know that this is a disastrous idea. >> >+=+ Now I would have thought any semi-balanced programmer could >design a program for the machine that would identify the (bar-coded) >board number on each pack, select the relevant deal. and call for >the matchingly bar-coded board to be placed in the machine. How >naive of me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, as I think you know full well, you're absolutely right. Placing a couple of bar code on the face of each card (to allow for them being either way up) would make the *software* required to sort and deal automatically very easy to write. I've done more than my fair share of this sort of identification and sorting while writing software to identify samples going through laboratories. Many laboratories bar-code samples on receipt, in order to trace their path through the various analyses - the various codes of practice, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, are very strict on being able to trace samples and sub-samples at all stages in the process. I know nothing whatever about the mechanical side of this, but bar code readers are certainly very simple to program, and I know quite a bit about automation and embedded software. If anyone out there has the resources to fund such a project, and has, or can find, the expertise to get the mechanical aspects sorted, I'll be more than happy to do the software side - either as a one-off paid job, or as a collaboration for a share of the profits. **This is a serious offer.** Anyone who is interested can e-mail me privately to discuss it further. 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 Feb 4 00:06:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13D5wp15498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:05:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13D5mH15473 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:05:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-69.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.69]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EF1EC6A3 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:56:35 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:53:11 -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: >> This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', >> giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. >> Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions >> (accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. > I do not see what this has to do with balanced-ness: it seems to be a > discussion of frequency. I'm sorry David but you've lost the plot. I listed the 15 most common distributions rather than all 39 for simplicity and mentioned frequency of occurrence simply to point out that the remainder hardly mattered - I shouldn't have bothered. >>I have used 'population' SDs rather than Todd's 'sample' SDs which I think >>must be correct, although I am not a statistician per se. Relatively, it >>makes no difference - mine are SQRT(3/4) = 86.6% of his. >> >> 4 3 3 3 0.433 >> 4 4 3 2 0.829 >> 5 3 3 2 1.090 >> 5 4 2 2 1.299 >> 4 4 4 1 1.299 >> 5 4 3 1 1.479 >> 6 3 2 2 1.639 >> 6 3 3 1 1.785 >> 5 5 2 1 1.785 >> 6 4 2 1 1.920 >> 5 4 4 0 1.920 >> 5 5 3 0 2.046 >> 6 4 3 0 2.165 >> 7 2 2 2 2.165 >> 7 3 2 1 2.278 >> >>There is no argument about the EBU's 'balanced three' which head the list. >>However 6322, which (together with 5422) the EBU defines as >> 'semi-balanced' is not as balanced as either 4441 or 5431. > 6322 is more balanced in the popular view, balanced and frequent being >totally different concepts. Clearly the standard deviation of a hand's suit distribution is a sensible way (arguably the *only* sensible way) of measuring the 'balanced-ness' of a particular distribution. A 6322 hand may feel more balanced than either 4441 or 5431, possibly because we are distracted by the presence of singletons, but mathematically it is not. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 01:07:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13E6eR26838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:06:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13E6WH26816 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.81]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GQYN3W00.88P for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:04:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-173.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.173]) by psmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0h 101/2583182); 03 Feb 2002 23:57:31 Message-ID: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:56:13 +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 Wayne Burrows wrote: >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > >AKQJ >xxx >xxx >xxx Yes. At any form of bridge, I would automatically open 1S in third seat. My partner Michael Courtney would do the same. His three year old daughter would not, but has the excuse that she doesn't play bridge yet. They're the only three people staying at my place tonight, so we vote 2-1 for it. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 01:20:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13EKjs29194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:20:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13EKaH29173 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:20:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d331.iae.nl [212.61.5.77]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 146AC215D4 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:11:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <005b01c1acbc$8f531360$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020202133641.00a3b870@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:37:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In theNetherlands cards with an "unbalanced" back are forbidden in tournament bridge. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > At 10:00 AM 2/2/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > >Whatever you do, print the numbers _twice_, right side up and upside > >down! Make sure the backs look the same no matter which way up the > >cards are held. Otherwise you have handed the dishonest an easy way to > >signal to partner. I don't suppose many people would actually do so, > >but why make it so easy? > > Remarkably, the ACBL doesn't do this on its current cards; ACBL-standard > cards have the ACBL logo on the back, with a spade that can be pointed up > or 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 02:29:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13FSam10856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:28:36 +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 g13FSPH10822 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:28:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g13FKAw04815 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:20:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:18:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@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 <000801c1aca3$56746580$8545e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"...as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, >so he openeth not his mouth." [Isaiah] >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Steve Willner" >Cc: >Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 6:11 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > >> >. >> >> If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they >would >> immediately know that this is a disastrous idea. >> >+=+ Now I would have thought any semi-balanced programmer could >design a program for the machine that would identify the (bar-coded) >board number on each pack, select the relevant deal. and call for >the matchingly bar-coded board to be placed in the machine. How >naive of me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ and tell the operator to find that board? You are totally naive here Grattan. A good duplimate operator deals 32 boards in about 5 minutes. You need several hundred sets for Brighton. You're doubling the amount of time, and negating the duplimate machine.. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 4 02:30:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13FTvI11084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:29:57 +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 g13FTiH11051 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:29:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g13FLUw04821 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:21:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:19:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> 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 , Brian Meadows writes >On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:20:50 +1300, Wayne wrote: > >>Hi >> >>Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: >> >>AKQJ >>xxx >>xxx >>xxx >> > >You seem to be short on replies, Wayne, so although I'm far from >expert status, I'll add my answer. > >Definitely, yes - in two of my regular partnerships this is a >first and second seat opener too, but then we're playing >aggressive light-opening systems, with the mechanisms to handle >opening bids on this sort of hand. > >Even if playing OKBridge's standard SAYC, I would chuck in a 3rd >hand 1S on this if only to direct the lead. > >Brian. > > This is a 1S opening in 3rd seat, regardless of which suit is AKQJ. -- 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 Feb 4 02:39:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13FdQ312639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:39:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13FdEH12604 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:39:15 +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 g13FU7x01692; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:30:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Steve Willner" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:30:03 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 02/03/2002 16:30:07 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott replied to my post: >>If any of those persons ever operated a duplication machine they >>would immediately know that this is a disastrous idea. >> > Now I would have thought any semi-balanced programmer could >design a program for the machine that would identify the (bar-coded) >board number on each pack, select the relevant deal. and call for >the matchingly bar-coded board to be placed in the machine. How >naive of me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Semi-balanced? Now, I don't remember if I mentioned it, but with my machine I average up to 300 deals per hour, or 12 seconds per deal. (When in top form I have been down to 10 seconds per deal over a substantional periode). That doesn't leave much surplus time (to waste) for finding the correct board or the correct pack to be used next. (The 12 second periode includes taking the board from the source pile, removing the four hands and placing those on the machine, taking the sorted hands from the machine and loading them back to the board, and finally placing the board in the target container. In between I start the machine to process the next card pack. The periode even includes shifting the completed target container away and bringing the next source pile of boards to the machine. "Next please!") 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 Feb 4 02:56:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13Fuem15570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:56:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13FuSH15532 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:56:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g13FlPO02261 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:47:25 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c1acca$13520c40$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "\"BLML\"" Subject: [BLML] Just testing, from now on I have a new e-mail address Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:47:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 just to verify that my new mail connection works with BLML too. 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 Feb 4 04:49:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13HmPe04483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 04:48:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13HmFH04464 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 04:48:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6YMS; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:39:16 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020203123345.00a812f0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 12:38:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is there a reason that they call you "MadDog", John? :)) Walt Flory ________ >This is a 1S opening in 3rd seat, regardless of which suit is AKQJ. >-- >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 >-- > > >At 03:19 PM 2/3/02 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , Brian Meadows > writes > >On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:20:50 +1300, Wayne wrote: > > > >>Hi > >> > >>Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > >> > >>AKQJ > >>xxx > >>xxx > >>xxx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 09:46:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13MjUO00635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:45:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g13MjLH00631 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:45:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-010.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.202] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16XVFB-00081G-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:36:17 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:35:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:35:13 -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 Spades are trumps. Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". The defenders have a master trump. Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. Correct? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 10:48:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g13NldI00664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:47:39 +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 (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g13NlUH00660 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:47:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g13NcLR19475; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:38:21 +0100 Message-ID: <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:38:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:35 PM Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > Spades are trumps. > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > The defenders have a master trump. > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > Correct? Sure, no problem Sven > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 11:06:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1406VT00686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:06:31 +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-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 g1406JH00678 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:06:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.38.235] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XWRH-000Mkv-00; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: <006b01c1ad0e$e028c440$eb26e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Steve Willner" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:45:32 -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 Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" ; "Steve Willner" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > (The 12 second periode includes taking the board > from the source pile, removing the four hands and > placing those on the machine, taking the sorted > hands from the machine and loading them back to > the board, and finally placing the board in the target > container. In between I start the machine to process > the next card pack. The periode even includes > shifting the completed target container away and > bringing the next source pile of boards to the > machine. "Next please!") > > regards Sven > +=+ "He only does it to annoy Because he knows it teases." +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 11:06:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1406WB00687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:06:32 +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-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 g1406KH00679 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:06:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.38.235] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XWRI-000Mkv-00; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:52:53 +0000 Message-ID: <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:52:19 -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: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > > > >AKQJ > >xxx > >xxx > >xxx > > > Yes. At any form of bridge, I would automatically > open 1S in third seat. > +=+ We are told a law question follows. I have been puzzling what kind of question. It seems incredible that any kind of question could arise in any form of bridge, anywhere, about a natural 1S on this, whether as an opener opposite a passed hand or as an overcall. ~ 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 Feb 4 11:19:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g140ItV01600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:18:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g140IgH01578 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:18:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-57-147.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.57.147] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16XWhb-0002B3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:09:43 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c1ad10$04f91800$93397ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:08:03 -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 Sven wrote: > > Spades are trumps. > > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 > winning Diamonds. > > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > > The defenders have a master trump. > > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > > Correct? > > Sure, no problem I think there may be a problem. A recent WBFLC minute indicates that in a case where declarer claims in a trump contract, rational lines of play do not include cashing trumps before side winners. The implications of this are complex - but at any rate, the position is perhaps no longer as simple as it was, or as we would like it to be. 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 Feb 4 11:21:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g140LFx02000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:21:15 +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 g140L4H01972 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:21:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.82.12] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XWfZ-0004j1-00; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:07:37 +0000 Message-ID: <007601c1ad10$f053f2c0$eb26e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" , "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:13:35 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" ; "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:35 PM > Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > > > Spades are trumps. > > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks > > holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She > > says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > > The defenders have a master trump. > > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the > > outstanding trump. > > > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she > > loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play > > a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > > Correct? > > Sure, no problem > > Sven > +=+ This is the position in which an EBL Appeals Committee ruled that it would be irrational, not merely inferior, for a competent player to play the trump before the side suits since it yields control of the hand if the claimant has lost sight of an opponent's winner. The question is moot and calls for a bridge judgement; there is, however, now this EBL precedent. . ~ 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 Feb 4 11:41:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g140eqK05624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:40:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g140ehH05605 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:40:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 24585 invoked by uid 504); 4 Feb 2002 00:26:21 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 4.18221 secs); 04 Feb 2002 00:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.140) by 0 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 00:26:16 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:31:06 +1300 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 Yes a Law question follows. What happens when a regulation is illegal? Yes I have asked that question before, if not explicitly in this forum then implicitly. The laws allow Zonal authorities to regulate light openings (King or more below average strength) and to delegate that right. But we have seen that many organisations have made rules that 'stretch', to say the least, that right. The NZCBA has decreed: "Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: ... b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet the Rule of 18 (the number of high card points plus the number of cards in the 2 longest suits of the hand.) ..." My little poll here and on rgb and amongst some friends was designed to determine the level of implicit and explicit agreement as to an opening on that hand that does not meet the Rule of 18. All responses that I have received to date have said that they would (or at least might) open this hand. It appears that all of these players play HUM's - if they were to play in NZ. And further that they may only play that method in open events where 8 or more boards in succession are played against the same pair. Is such a regulation reasonable? Is such a regulation illegal? How do we get NCO's to comply with the limitations of their right to regulate? Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Peter Gill ; BLML Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Speak roughly to your little boy, > And beat him when he sneezes .... " > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Gill" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > > > > > >AKQJ > > >xxx > > >xxx > > >xxx > > > > > > Yes. At any form of bridge, I would automatically > > open 1S in third seat. > > > +=+ We are told a law question follows. I have been > puzzling what kind of question. It seems incredible > that any kind of question could arise in any form of > bridge, anywhere, about a natural 1S on this, > whether as an opener opposite a passed hand or > as an overcall. ~ 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 Feb 4 12:11:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141AZJ11391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g141AOH11357 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:10:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g1411DX24485; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:01:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01b301c1ad17$71252f80$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> <007601c1ad10$f053f2c0$eb26e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 02:01:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Grattan Endicott" .....(snip some extra headers) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:35 PM > > Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > > > > > > > Spades are trumps. > > > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks > > > holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She > > > says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > > > > The defenders have a master trump. > > > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the > > > outstanding trump. > > > > > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she > > > loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play > > > a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > > > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > > > Correct? > > > > Sure, no problem > > > > Sven > > > +=+ This is the position in which an EBL Appeals > Committee ruled that it would be irrational, not > merely inferior, for a competent player to play the > trump before the side suits since it yields control > of the hand if the claimant has lost sight of an > opponent's winner. The question is moot and > calls for a bridge judgement; there is, however, > now this EBL precedent. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Message read, but frankly now I really want to know: Will a less competent player lose all three tricks because at his level it is NOT irrational to play the trump first? Where do we draw the line between the player who is careless and the player who is irrational here? If you strike out the word "competent" and quote that after a fallacious claim the player shall be permitted the same "reasonable" play regardless of his competence, then and only then shall I accept this precedent, otherwise I think it stinks. Any "competent" player should know better than claiming without complete control. (Yes, I know we all do). If he has forgotten one or more essential cards and fails to specify a "safe" sequence in which to play the remaining cards (just in case he has forgotten) I see absolutely no reason why the Director or AC shall award him a "bonus" for discovering this when he eventually sees all the remaining cards unless they are prepared to award the same "bonus" to a less competent player. He should accept his medicine exactly as the less competent player must do. In all my years of directing the directive from my federation has been this: If the claimer errounesly believes that all his cards are high then the ruling shall be as if his cards are played in the sequence most unfavourable to him, simply because there is no reason why the sequence in which he playes his cards is important. "Careless" play includes playing the cards in any (random) sequence without taking any (unspecified) safety precautions. 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 Feb 4 12:29:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141T1W15122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:29:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g141SpH15093 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:28:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g141Kbw06158 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:20:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:18:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning >Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? > yes >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/ -- 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 Feb 4 12:34:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141YJd16114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:34:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g141XwH16062 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:59 +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 16XXsN-000GSu-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:24:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:08:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning >Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? There is an EBL AC decision that says she loses one trick. This has not been challenged [that I know of] in the EBL and might therefore be considered a precedent for EBL events. The EBU has discussed it and does not see this ruling as correct in the EBU. Their view is that any card might be played - three tricks to the defence. I do not believe there is a right answer unless the relevant authority has pronounced. -- 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 Feb 4 12:34:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141YOQ16122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:34:25 +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 g141XvH16061 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:59 +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 16XXsN-000GSm-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:24:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:56:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> <5.1.0.14.0.20020203123345.00a812f0@mail.fscv.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020203123345.00a812f0@mail.fscv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Walt Flory writes >Is there a reason that they call you "MadDog", John? :)) Delusions of grandeur, I'm a farid [sic]: *no-one* calls him MadDog except himself! -- 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 Feb 4 12:34:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141YTH16132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:34:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g141XwH16067 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:59 +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 16XXsN-000GSq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:25:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:58:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just testing, from now on I have a new e-mail address References: <002101c1acca$13520c40$09cb049b@netop7210> In-Reply-To: <002101c1acca$13520c40$09cb049b@netop7210> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >This is just to verify that my new mail connection works with BLML too. No, sorry, never saw this. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 12:34:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141YJs16116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:34:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g141XwH16066 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:59 +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 16XXsN-000GSl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:24:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:52:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > >>> This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', >>> giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. >>> Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions >>> (accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. > >> I do not see what this has to do with balanced-ness: it seems to be a >> discussion of frequency. > >I'm sorry David but you've lost the plot. I listed the 15 most common >distributions rather than all 39 for simplicity and mentioned frequency of >occurrence simply to point out that the remainder hardly mattered - I >shouldn't have bothered. OK, I misunderstood what you are saying - but is still seems completely wrong. >>>I have used 'population' SDs rather than Todd's 'sample' SDs which I think >>>must be correct, although I am not a statistician per se. Relatively, it >>>makes no difference - mine are SQRT(3/4) = 86.6% of his. It certainly makes no difference: balanced-ness is nothing to do with mathematics. >> 6322 is more balanced in the popular view, balanced and frequent being >>totally different concepts. > >Clearly the standard deviation of a hand's suit distribution is a sensible >way (arguably the *only* sensible way) of measuring the 'balanced-ness' of a >particular distribution. It is not clear at all. Balanced-ness is a concept introduced by authorities over they years, and has nothing to with standard deviations. > A 6322 hand may feel more balanced than either >4441 or 5431, possibly because we are distracted by the presence of >singletons, but mathematically it is not. Since 6322 is "clearly" more balanced than 4441 or 5431 that shows why your approach must be wrong. The basic idea is that the more a hand is balanced, the more it is suitable for a certain approach to bidding, and the reverse. Thus the definitions are based on the correct way to bid in various people's minds, and that is not based on standard deviations. -- 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 Feb 4 12:34:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g141YWi16138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:34:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g141XwH16063 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:59 +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 16XXsN-000GSo-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:24:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:57:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >Wayne Burrows wrote: >>Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: >> >>AKQJ >>xxx >>xxx >>xxx > > >Yes. At any form of bridge, I would automatically open 1S >in third seat. My partner Michael Courtney would do the same. >His three year old daughter would not, but has the excuse >that she doesn't play bridge yet. They're the only three >people staying at my place tonight, so we vote 2-1 for it. I can feel the precipice in front of me .... No, my partnership does not permit a 1S opening on this hand, but .... .... I have no doubt both my partner and I *would* open it 1S! -- 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 Feb 4 17:36:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g146Zlq04199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:35:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g146ZdH04195 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:35:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from u0m7o0 (203-79-95-71.apx0.paradise.net.nz [203.79.95.71]) by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F2FCD147D; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:26:41 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <004801c1ad45$48b11cc0$475f4fcb@u0m7o0> From: "John Rosevear" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "BLML" References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:28:33 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Wayne we learn something every day I always thought I played fairly basic Acol and would certainly open that hand in 3rd seat with most partners (irrespective of the suit) except perhaps when playing with the new learners. I see your point - it now appears I play a HUM??? I ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, 4 February 2002 13:31 Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > Hi > > Yes a Law question follows. > > What happens when a regulation is illegal? > > Yes I have asked that question before, if not explicitly in this forum then > implicitly. > > The laws allow Zonal authorities to regulate light openings (King or more > below average strength) and to delegate that right. But we have seen that > many organisations have made rules that 'stretch', to say the least, that > right. > > The NZCBA has decreed: > > "Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods > > A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: > > ... > > b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet the Rule of 18 > (the number of high card points plus the number of cards in the 2 longest > suits of the hand.) > > ..." > > My little poll here and on rgb and amongst some friends was designed to > determine the level of implicit and explicit agreement as to an opening on > that hand that does not meet the Rule of 18. > > All responses that I have received to date have said that they would (or at > least might) open this hand. It appears that all of these players play > HUM's - if they were to play in NZ. And further that they may only play > that method in open events where 8 or more boards in succession are played > against the same pair. > > Is such a regulation reasonable? > > Is such a regulation illegal? > > How do we get NCO's to comply with the limitations of their right to > regulate? > > > > Wayne Burrows > 10 Glen Place > Palmerston North > New Zealand > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > Phone 0064 6 3551259 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: Peter Gill ; BLML > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "Speak roughly to your little boy, > > And beat him when he sneezes .... " > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Gill" > > To: "BLML" > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:56 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > > > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > > > > > > > >AKQJ > > > >xxx > > > >xxx > > > >xxx > > > > > > > > > Yes. At any form of bridge, I would automatically > > > open 1S in third seat. > > > > > +=+ We are told a law question follows. I have been > > puzzling what kind of question. It seems incredible > > that any kind of question could arise in any form of > > bridge, anywhere, about a natural 1S on this, > > whether as an opener opposite a passed hand or > > as an overcall. ~ 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 19:06:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1485Zq10018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:05:35 +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 g1485OH09990 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:05:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.238] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Xdut-000MoK-00; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 07:51:56 +0000 Message-ID: <003501c1ad51$ce06e880$ee39e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> <007601c1ad10$f053f2c0$eb26e150@dodona> <01b301c1ad17$71252f80$09cb049b@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:58:13 -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: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Fearghal O'Boyle" ; "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > +=+ This is the position in which an EBL Appeals > > Committee ruled that it would be irrational, not > > merely inferior, for a competent player to play the > > trump before the side suits since it yields control > > of the hand if the claimant has lost sight of an > > opponent's winner. The question is moot and > > calls for a bridge judgement; there is, however, > > now this EBL precedent. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Message read, but frankly now I really want to know: > > Will a less competent player lose all three tricks because > at his level it is NOT irrational to play the trump first? > Where do we draw the line between the player who is > careless and the player who is irrational here? > > If you strike out the word "competent" and quote that > after a fallacious claim the player shall be permitted the > same "reasonable" play regardless of his competence, > then and only then shall I accept this precedent, > otherwise I think it stinks. > +=+ The appeals committee was dealing with one specific case where the players were certainly 'competent'. I think the use of 'competent' related to the players concerned. When the EBL Appeals Committee has another such case it will remain to be seen how the presumed precedent is applied. My personal view is that 'irrational' should not be a matter depending on the class of player but an absolute judgement based upon the nature of reason. However, I am currently bound by the contrary view of the WBFLC. Something to work on for the future. In the meantime I would argue for the EBL decision to be extended to all classes of players. It is my personal opinion that a player will play a master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ 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 Feb 4 20:54:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g149sKE29482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:54:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g149sBH29461 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:54:12 +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 KAA17075; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:42:21 +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 KAA07962; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:45:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204104241.024545c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:48:26 +0100 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 18:05 2/02/2002 +0000, Brambledown wrote: >This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', >giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. >Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions >(accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. >I have used 'population' SDs rather than Todd's 'sample' SDs which I think >must be correct, although I am not a statistician per se. Relatively, it >makes no difference - mine are SQRT(3/4) = 86.6% of his. > > 4 3 3 3 0.433 > 4 4 3 2 0.829 > 5 3 3 2 1.090 > 5 4 2 2 1.299 > 4 4 4 1 1.299 > 5 4 3 1 1.479 > 6 3 2 2 1.639 > 6 3 3 1 1.785 > 5 5 2 1 1.785 > 6 4 2 1 1.920 > 5 4 4 0 1.920 > 5 5 3 0 2.046 > 6 4 3 0 2.165 > 7 2 2 2 2.165 > 7 3 2 1 2.278 > >There is no argument about the EBU's 'balanced three' which head the list. >However 6322, which (together with 5422) the EBU defines as 'semi-balanced' >is not as balanced as either 4441 or 5431. (DB's 7330 ranks 19th out of 39 >with an index of 2.872!) > >To our non-EBU friends it may not be clear from this thread, that in the EBU >even at OB Level 4 a 1NT opening may not, by agreement, be opened with a >singleton (unless it is artificial, 19+, permitted at L3 & above). It must >conform to OB 12.5.3 and must therefore be (a) balanced (4333, 4432 or 5332) >or (b) balanced or semi-balanced (5422 or 6332). AG : very interesting facs. It means that, if one admits 6322 (with bad suits and other things), then one has to admit 4441 and 5431 for the sake of internal logic (with the same requirements). Just one question : is it really disallowed to know that partner might have opened 1NT on, say, K - AKQ - J642 - 65432 ? (assuming 12-14 is played). If it is the case, then the EBU is promoting bad bridge (what are the alternatives ?). If it only means partner shan't make provisions for it, eg he will go all the way to 4S with a fair 6-card suit and a 12-count, I don't object. Best regards, Alain. >Note to anyone concerned with EBU OB Regs: We are allowed an opening 2N >"that on occasion may contain a singleton" (OB 12.7.1(b)) (not alertable -OB >5.4.4(j), but must be mentioned on CC). Isn't there much to be said for >extending this approach to a 1NT opening? Almost everyone occasionally >opens 1NT with a singleton. It is inevitably referred to the TD and we are >immediately into the deviation/psyche/frequency/disclosure areas. If my >opponents want to open 1NT with an appropriate range 4441, I would far >rather they did it honestly with full disclosure than sneak it in under the >guise of a deviation/psyche as at present ("my partner was as surprised as >you" - yeah, yeah). > >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 21:07:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14A7Ob01587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:07:24 +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 (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14A7FH01571 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:07:16 +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 KAA21356; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:57:37 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA21923; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:58:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204105314.0246ad90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:01:31 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Proper Adjustment in San Bernardino! In-Reply-To: <000901c1ac23$80587c40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:54 2/02/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >A ruling at my table, unfavorable to me, was welcomed by me as illustrating a >bridge adjudication principle: The identity of the pairs should not be taken >into account when making a ruling. > >San Bernardino regional senior stratified (A, B, and C strata pairs) pair >event > > S- J765 > H- 1083 > D- J10873 > C- 3 > >S- 42 S- AQ1083 >H- A2 H- KQJ94 >D- AK942 D- 5 >C- Q765 C- J9 > > S- K9 > H- 765 > D- Q6 > C- AK10842 > >For reasons both embarrassing and unimportant, South's actual contract of 3C >doubled down a bunch was changed to 3NT by me (West). Then the TD, who knew I >could play bridge and that N/S were not strong, had to decide on an adjusted >score for each side. Taking no account of "the class of players involved," she >assigned scores of +/-400. > >Now, I could make an overtrick in my sleep against the N/S pair, but the >ruling >delighted me. The TD involved, who not long ago would have awarded avg- to us >and avg+ to N/S, told me she had to assume a generic West for this event in >place of me. Why? Because it would not be fair to give me a score that >others in >my place would not get. Lacking a crystal ball, she had no way to judge what >every pair in the room would be capable, or incapable, of doing. That >being so, >she considers that every player in the event is of equal ability. > >Was it at all probable that a generic West in this lower-level event would >miss >the endplay? Yes, obviously. Was it at all probable that a generic South would >discard a spade early, luring that generic West into a spade finesse (or >"Strouse Endplay") at the end for down one? No, obviously. Ruling correct. > >The case would have been more difficult in a high-level event, with 3NT >made on >the nose highly improbable for two generic pairs. AG : I don't understand why 3NT shouldn't make (on any lead, the natural and immediate play of a spade to the 10 gives you 9 tricks at least). But as the general case is concerned, remember that L12C demands that, whenever 10 tricks are plausible, they be given. And here, it is the case : a club lead and continuation (which is not at all impossible) or club lead ducked by South (even more probable) makes it 10 tricks. Even a club lead and non-continjuation could make it 10. I would have given 10. But you're right : the personality of West is not the base of the ruling, only the fact that I deem 10 tricks not at all impossible. 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 Feb 4 21:14:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14AE3D02805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:14:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14ADsH02778 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA22635; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:04:16 +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 LAA28799; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:04:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204110144.024690f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:08:11 +0100 To: "Wayne Burrows" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@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 12:20 3/02/2002 +1300, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Hi > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > >AKQJ >xxx >xxx >xxx AG : yes, they do (at least some of them). No, there ain't 18 total points. No, the Rule of 18 isn't implemented in Belgian main events. What's the question ? Ah yes, whether I would open *two spades* on this ? I'd give it some consideration. 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 Mon Feb 4 21:54:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14ArYU08155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:53:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14ArLH08117 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:53:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g14AiLu17208 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:44:21 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:44 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 asked for an example: OB 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' *for alerting purposes* b) a bid of No Trumps which you are prepared to play at that level, which is not forcing and which conveys no info about your suit holdings. I know many players who would, like me, open 1NT on K,KJxx,KT9x,KTxx quite happily. Obviously not a conventional bid so no problems there. Also not alertable according to the above. The logic of 9.3.1 says that this is not a "Natural NT bid". (not balanced/semi-balanced, short in a suit not bid by partner). Being not conventional and not natural seems to give rise to confusion. 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 Feb 4 21:54:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14ArYq08152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:53:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14ArLH08119 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:53:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g14AiMB17244 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:44:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:44 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > Since 6322 is "clearly" more balanced than 4441 or 5431 that shows why > your approach must be wrong. It's not apparent to me, and allegedly not to Jose Le Dentu either. Certainly having 4 more cards in your longest suit than your shortest, rather than 3, sounds more unbalanced (6-2 cf 4-1). I don't have a problem with the bridge authorities defining "semi-balanced" according to popular misconception but it seems very stupid to dismiss proper analysis just because it doesn't support such misconception. My gut tells me that when I pick up 4441 I will often end up in an awkward (despite being best) NT contract, with 6322 I expect a suit to play better more often. If this was supported by multiple hand analysis it would be a "bridge" rather than "mathematical" indication that 4441 is "more balanced". 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 Feb 4 22:02:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14B2Yd09984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:02:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g14B2PH09957 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:02:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 1020 invoked by uid 0); 4 Feb 2002 10:53:20 -0000 Received: from pd9e3893c.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.137.60) by mail.gmx.net (mp009-rz3) with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 10:53:20 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: "Wayne Burrows" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:51:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Message-ID: <3C5E75B0.6372.955B7E@localhost> In-reply-to: <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Wayne, the problem is that not only many players have the eleventh commandment: High Card Points, but also the federations adore this Holy Kraal nowadays because of those many players. We are on the path that, due off al those that are only able to count HCP, nothing else matters. Federations support this view, 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 Mon Feb 4 22:11:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14BBRw11409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:11:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.254]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14BBIH11373 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:11:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr; 4 Feb 2002 12:02:15 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.248.113.26) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr; 4 Feb 2002 12:02:02 +0100 Message-ID: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Laws" Subject: [BLML] Senior concession Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:02:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, just a "small" concession. pair even, senior good level, (french nearly top firsts serie) contract 7H, declarer with everything else good need to pick up trumps with AKJ8xxxx opposite xxx. Yes, 8+3, missing the queen ... He plays x from dummy, discard, "Ho, please, look if you don't have one (friends at the table)" " sorry, i really don't have", Ace, small. " One down, one trump for you". Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. Travelling score sheet : lots of 7H making, 6H+1 etc. so declarer looks hands and discover he had 11 trumps (miscounted his trumps?) and ask for 7H making. He calls TD. Know, what? L71 said you can cancel a concession if you cannot lose the trick on any non-irrational play. Is playing a small trump before K irrational? Is not cashing KH at next trick irrational? when you think opp has Qxx beside AKJ etc.? For me yes, but what do you think? If declarer don't cash KH, we suppose opponent can save a ruff on side suits. At least, uppercut. And, some more, should opponent volonteer 7H = when declarer wants to cancel his concession? Oh course, he can, but should he? Olivier. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 22:25:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14BPR214192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:25:27 +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 g14BPEH14160 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:25:15 +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 16Xh6b-0001H2-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:16:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:39:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >Yes a Law question follows. > >What happens when a regulation is illegal? > >Yes I have asked that question before, if not explicitly in this forum then >implicitly. > >The laws allow Zonal authorities to regulate light openings (King or more >below average strength) and to delegate that right. But we have seen that >many organisations have made rules that 'stretch', to say the least, that >right. > >The NZCBA has decreed: > >"Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods > >A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: > >... > >b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet the Rule of 18 >(the number of high card points plus the number of cards in the 2 longest >suits of the hand.) > >..." > >My little poll here and on rgb and amongst some friends was designed to >determine the level of implicit and explicit agreement as to an opening on >that hand that does not meet the Rule of 18. > >All responses that I have received to date have said that they would (or at >least might) open this hand. It appears that all of these players play >HUM's - if they were to play in NZ. And further that they may only play >that method in open events where 8 or more boards in succession are played >against the same pair. Of course, you are assuming they are playing a HUM system. I am not at all sure that that is true. A pair has a set of agreements that are either legal or not. When a special hand comes along I do not think that you can say because a player would do such and such therefore his agreements are such and such. Despite the restraints of his system he is there to play bridge. The hand does not meet the limits for an opening 1S bid in the EBU, even at Level 4, but I would not rule that a pair was using an illegal system because on a very special and unusual hand they appear to be outside the limits. Similarly, I am not sure this hand should prove they are playing a HUM system. -- 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 Feb 4 22:25:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14BPSO14194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:25:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g14BPEH14161 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:25:15 +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 16Xh6b-0001H3-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:16:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:41:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> <001501c1ad10$04f91800$93397ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001501c1ad10$04f91800$93397ad5@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 >Sven wrote: > >> > Spades are trumps. >> > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump >and 2 >> winning Diamonds. >> > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". >> > >> > The defenders have a master trump. >> > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> > >> > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >> > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. >> > >> > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >> > Correct? >> >> Sure, no problem > >I think there may be a problem. A recent WBFLC minute indicates that in >a case where declarer claims in a trump contract, rational lines of play >do not include cashing trumps before side winners. The implications of >this are complex - but at any rate, the position is perhaps no longer as >simple as it was, or as we would like it to be. I was not aware of a WBFLC ruling, which might easily change our view. Was there one? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 22:49:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14BnS718146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:49:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14BnJH18121 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:49:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-40-50.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.40.50] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16XhTv-0005pL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:40:19 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c1ad70$7eca15c0$32287ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:38:28 -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 The "most balanced" hand you can have is 4-3-3-3. Now: By moving one card from a suit to another suit in a 4-3-3-3 shape, one may arrive either at a 4-4-3-2 shape or a 5-3-3-2 shape. These are therefore the "next most balanced" hands. In order to arrive at 4-4-4-1, one must move two cards from a 4-3-3-3. In similar fashion, one may arrive at 5-4-3-1, or 6-3-2-2, or 5-4-2-2, or 6-3-3-1 (and doubtless some othe shapes that I cannot be bothered to work out). One would tentatively classify these hands as "third order" balanced hands... And so on. But the fact that a term has been defined by a bridge regulator does not imply that the term means anything. 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 Feb 4 22:52:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Bprn18574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:51:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14BphH18546 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:51:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.157]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g14Bgb504294 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:42:37 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5E73BF.2090207@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:42:55 +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] 3rd seat opening References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was waiting for it. Wayne Burrows wrote: > Hi > > Yes a Law question follows. > > What happens when a regulation is illegal? > > Yes I have asked that question before, if not explicitly in this forum then > implicitly. > > The laws allow Zonal authorities to regulate light openings (King or more > below average strength) and to delegate that right. But we have seen that > many organisations have made rules that 'stretch', to say the least, that > right. > > The NZCBA has decreed: > > "Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods > > A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: > > ... > > b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet the Rule of 18 > (the number of high card points plus the number of cards in the 2 longest > suits of the hand.) > > ..." > > My little poll here and on rgb and amongst some friends was designed to > determine the level of implicit and explicit agreement as to an opening on > that hand that does not meet the Rule of 18. > Well, I would not open that hand because I would see it does not conform to the rule of 18 which is also of application in Belgium. > All responses that I have received to date have said that they would (or at > least might) open this hand. It appears that all of these players play > HUM's - if they were to play in NZ. And further that they may only play > that method in open events where 8 or more boards in succession are played > against the same pair. > > Is such a regulation reasonable? > yes. It is a simple regulation, and that is its best feature. > Is such a regulation illegal? > Considering that the WBF regulation and the NZ regulation have probably been written by the same person, I'd say you'd be damned if you tried to argue that it were not. Of course there is a problem with wording. Is the WBF regulation conform the WBF Law book ? It would appear not, and yet it exists. > How do we get NCO's to comply with the limitations of their right to > regulate? > considering that the WBF regulation is basically the same - would we want to? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 4 22:53:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Brhx18841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:53:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14BrXH18823 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.157]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g14BiP506078 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:44:25 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5E742B.3070504@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:44:43 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Spades are trumps. > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > The defenders have a master trump. > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > Correct? > According to jurisprudence from Tenerife (EBL), no. Suits are played in random order, but trumps are played last. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 4 23:00:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14BxlI19540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:59:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14BxcH19520 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:59:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.157]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g14BoZ512425 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:50:35 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5E759C.4040302@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:50:52 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> <007601c1ad10$f053f2c0$eb26e150@dodona> <01b301c1ad17$71252f80$09cb049b@netop7210> <003501c1ad51$ce06e880$ee39e150@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > Something to work on for the future. In the meantime I > would argue for the EBL decision to be extended to all > classes of players. I agree that the principle is more encompassing than the EBLAC formulation might suggest. It is not just World silver medallists who would play like this, I would play the same way. > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a > master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow > providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing > so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players > will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when > they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is > an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think that is a sound principle. We should allow within a claim some form of routine, and that is not drawing extra trumps. Of course a player will not state, in a faulty claim, than he plays trumps last as a safety measure. After all, he is certain there is no need for this. There is no difference between hearts and spades, and so he shall play either, but there is a difference between trumps and non-trumps so we should allow a claimer to do the same as any other player. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Feb 4 23:36:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14CZih25623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:35:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g14CZYH25596 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:35:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21818 invoked by uid 50005); 4 Feb 2002 12:25:34 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4183. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.491999 secs); 04 Feb 2002 12:25:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.105]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Feb 2002 12:25:32 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 07:26:36 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> <3C5E73BF.2090207@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C5E73BF.2090207@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:42:55 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >> How do we get NCO's to comply with the limitations of their right to >> regulate? >> >considering that the WBF regulation is basically the same - would we want to? > > Of course we would - at all levels. If a governing body, whether national or world, does not follow the rules, what grounds do they have for expecting their members to do so? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 00:13:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14DD2L01435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:13:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14DCqH01412 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.157]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g14D3q528164 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:03:52 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5E86C9.6070209@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:04:09 +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] Senior concession References: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > Hello, > just a "small" concession. > pair even, senior good level, (french nearly top firsts serie) > contract 7H, > declarer with everything else good need to pick up trumps with AKJ8xxxx > opposite xxx. > Yes, 8+3, missing the queen ... > He plays x from dummy, discard, "Ho, please, look if you don't have one > (friends at the table)" " sorry, i really don't have", Ace, small. > " One down, one trump for you". > Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. > Travelling score sheet : lots of 7H making, 6H+1 etc. so declarer looks > hands and discover he had 11 trumps (miscounted his trumps?) and ask for 7H > making. He calls TD. > Know, what? > L71 said you can cancel a concession if you cannot lose the trick on any > non-irrational play. > Is playing a small trump before K irrational? Of course it is not, when you think there are 3 out. I have always urged that rationality has to be judged within the frame of mind of the claimer. Here that means giving one trick. Sorry ! > Is not cashing KH at next trick irrational? when you think opp has Qxx > beside AKJ etc.? > For me yes, but what do you think? > If declarer don't cash KH, we suppose opponent can save a ruff on side > suits. At least, uppercut. > And, some more, should opponent volonteer 7H = when declarer wants to cancel > his concession? Oh course, he can, but should he? > Olivier. > Consider this. Suppose there are only 12 tricks, with an ace out. Declarer is in 6He and he sees the "bad news". He cannot claim yet and he puts low. Do you (with only 2 hearts to the queen) not take this trick ? Why then should you not take the trick offered in a claim ? > > > -- 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 Feb 5 00:13:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14DDc701524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:13:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14DDRH01489 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:13:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA26347; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:03:46 +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 OAA06422; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:04:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204124159.024649e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:07:35 +0100 To: "stefan filonardi" , "Wayne Burrows" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: <3C5E75B0.6372.955B7E@localhost> References: <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g14DDTH01497 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:51 4/02/2002 +0100, stefan filonardi wrote: >Hello Wayne, > >the problem is that not only many players have the eleventh >commandment: High Card Points, but also the federations adore >this Holy Kraal nowadays because of those many players. AG : so, bridge federations adore the Holy Cattle Enclosure ? Why not ... Twon't be more absurd than adorating the High Card Count. (sorry, Stefano, I couldn't resist. OutMontyPythoning the Monty Pythons has alwas been my _raison d'être_) Arf. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 00:27:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14DRai04275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:27:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14DRQH04237 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:27:26 +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 OAA29154; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:17:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA22206; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:18:26 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204141555.02465ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:21:42 +0100 To: "Olivier Beauvillain" , "Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession In-Reply-To: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:02 4/02/2002 +0100, Olivier Beauvillain wrote: >Hello, >just a "small" concession. >pair even, senior good level, (french nearly top firsts serie) >contract 7H, >declarer with everything else good need to pick up trumps with AKJ8xxxx >opposite xxx. >Yes, 8+3, missing the queen ... >He plays x from dummy, discard, "Ho, please, look if you don't have one >(friends at the table)" " sorry, i really don't have", Ace, small. >" One down, one trump for you". >Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. >Travelling score sheet : lots of 7H making, 6H+1 etc. so declarer looks >hands and discover he had 11 trumps (miscounted his trumps?) and ask for 7H >making. He calls TD. >Know, what? >L71 said you can cancel a concession if you cannot lose the trick on any >non-irrational play. >Is playing a small trump before K irrational? >Is not cashing KH at next trick irrational? when you think opp has Qxx >beside AKJ etc.? >For me yes, but what do you think? >If declarer don't cash KH, we suppose opponent can save a ruff on side >suits. At least, uppercut. >And, some more, should opponent volonteer 7H = when declarer wants to cancel >his concession? Oh course, he can, but should he? AG : I would feel compelled to do it, and L81C8 can surely be interpreted as making it possible. Only once, I did agree with the faulty concession. In fact, declarer claimed two tricks and conceded 2, but he could not lose more than one "on any normal play". I told him "you've got three, you know". But I was the underdog at the table. His response was so lofty and contemptuous that I didn't feel obliged to give him the tricks he didn't ask for. In other cases, It is incorrect (L72A2) not to do it. Yes, he should. 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 Feb 5 01:49:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Emxg19140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:48:59 +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-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 g14EmgH19080 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:48:42 +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 16XkHN-0001nn-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:39:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:14:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > >> Since 6322 is "clearly" more balanced than 4441 or 5431 that shows why >> your approach must be wrong. > >It's not apparent to me, and allegedly not to Jose Le Dentu either. >Certainly having 4 more cards in your longest suit than your shortest, >rather than 3, sounds more unbalanced (6-2 cf 4-1). You will always find a bridge authority to disagree with mainstream thinking. >I don't have a problem with the bridge authorities defining >"semi-balanced" according to popular misconception but it seems very >stupid to dismiss proper analysis just because it doesn't support such >misconception. It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support a minority position. -- 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 Feb 5 01:49:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14EmtW19129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:48:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14EmfH19079 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:48:42 +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 16XkHT-0001oc-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:39:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:12:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 asked for an example: > >OB 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' *for alerting purposes* > >b) a bid of No Trumps which you are prepared to play at that level, which >is not forcing and which conveys no info about your suit holdings. > >I know many players who would, like me, open 1NT on K,KJxx,KT9x,KTxx quite >happily. Obviously not a conventional bid so no problems there. Also not >alertable according to the above. > >The logic of 9.3.1 says that this is not a "Natural NT bid". >(not balanced/semi-balanced, short in a suit not bid by partner). >Being not conventional and not natural seems to give rise to confusion. If the confusion has come about from using a word not in the regs then that is different - but that was not what you said earlier. We do not use the word convention - that is for the Law book. English players have no need of the term convention: they can leave that to Directors, law-makers, regulation-makers and members of BLML. When you open 1NT on your 1=3=4-5 your bid is natural for alerting purposes so it is not alertable under 5.2.1[a]. Of course it is alertable under 5.2.1[c] so I wonder what we are talking about. For "Permitted Conventions" we have, as you point out, a definition of a "Natural NT" which most people find helpful as it accords with their ideas. Perhaps we should exclude it because it is unhelpful to minorities, but I am far convinced that the Orange book would be better if it was written in a more formalised and less user-friendly version. This was one of the main complaints about its predecessors, the Yellow and Green books. I find it difficult to see that there can be any confusion between the two concepts of alerting, and what you are allowed to play, and as an example, an illegal 1NT that happens to be alertable does not strike me as very important. -- 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 Feb 5 01:56:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14EtqQ20492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:55:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14EthH20464 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:55:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA29390 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:46:39 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Bridge Laws Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:27:01 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c5e9a35.6232.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.80 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On a similare theme S xxx H Jxx D KJxx C Jxx 3rd in hand NV. Mad dog would probably open 2S or some other zia type bid. I opened 1D. They stopped in 4H+3. Our team mates 6H+1. 3rd in hand NV is a classic spot for sub minimum openers. To wack a rule of 18 in there is basically giving the finger to "creative" bridge. Infact in this position and vul pd & I have now started to alert this as quite possibly light as the frequency it occurs is very high. Even Vul it hardly ever pays to go P P P. On the example hand. 1S is mandatory and even 2S or even a 1NT well within my thought patterns. K. -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 03:10:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14GAOO04640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:10:24 +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 g14GA3H04584 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:10:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g14G13L05906 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:01:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > If the confusion has come about from using a word not in the regs then > that is different - but that was not what you said earlier. We do not > use the word convention - that is for the Law book. English players > have no need of the term convention: they can leave that to Directors, > law-makers, regulation-makers and members of BLML. Players do need to know. Brambledown, for instance, has formed the impression that it is illegal to open a non-conventional, happy to play 1NT if the partnership understands that it might contain a singleton. Players need to know that such a regulation is outwith the powers to regulate of their SO or they too may form similarly erroneous opinions. > When you open 1NT on your 1=3=4-5 your bid is natural for alerting > purposes so it is not alertable under 5.2.1[a]. Of course it is > alertable under 5.2.1[c] so I wonder what we are talking about. Are you suggesting that people are "unlikely to expect" 1NT openings on eg K,KJxx,KT9x,KTxx or KQx,K,KTxx,QTxxx? Would you disagree with a pick-up partner who judged to open such hands with 1NT? But OK, I will ask partners to alert all my 1NTs in future. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 03:10:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14GAFi04622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:10:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14GA2H04581 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:10:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g14G12b05889 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:01:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support > a minority position. It is highly relevant analysis. What is the problem with saying "A minority of players believe 1444/1345 to be semi-balanced while the majority believes them to be unbalanced - both sides can make a reasonable case for their interpretation. In recognition of this the bridge authorities should give clarification when using the term semi-balanced.*" *Just as the EBU does in the orange book. Surely you can see that if such clarification wasn't given maybe 20-30% of players would interpret the phrase differently from the other 70-80%. How can that be good? PS, Minority opinions aren't always wrong. 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 Feb 5 03:37:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14GbSF09108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:37:29 +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-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 g14GbJH09089 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:37:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.70.28] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XluG-000OlF-00; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:23:49 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c1ad98$eaf5dc20$1c46e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00e701c1ad0b$dd8f8320$09cb049b@netop7210> <001501c1ad10$04f91800$93397ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:26:38 -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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 04 February 2002 01:41 Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > I was not aware of a WBFLC ruling, which > might easily change our view. Was there > one? > +=+ No. The matter arose in an appeal in Tenerife. See Appeal no. 41. The write-up fails to specify the basis for decision but it was the only one that has validity - the irrationality of cashing the second trump. This was clearly stated when the decision was conveyed. ~ 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 Feb 5 06:01:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14J0Aq01708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:00:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14J00H01672 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:00:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g14Ip0u01092 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:51:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:43:45 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> Message-ID: <20020204135100-r01010800-a6107176-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:02 PM, olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) wrote: > Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. Seems to me it's unethical to agree one down, when you know damn well the queen will fall under the king. 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 Feb 5 06:09:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14J9DV02779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:09:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14J93H02747 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:09:03 +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 g14Ixxu15163; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:00:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:55:30 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C5E73BF.2090207@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020204140000-r01010800-707936c0-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:42 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > considering that the WBF regulation is basically the same - would we want to? Would you argue along the lines that the WBF makes the laws, therefore the WBF can make whatever regulations they like? Or would you say that having made the laws, the WBF ought to comply with them, just as any NCBO should? Personally, I'd argue the latter. 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 Feb 5 06:09:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14J9Kc02790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:09:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14J99H02774 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:09:10 +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 g14J05u15311; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:00:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:52:09 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020204140005-r01010800-60a18fc7-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 1:39 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Similarly, I am not sure this hand should prove they are playing a HUM > system. Perhaps there is a wider question here. Law 93B says that an appeals committee may not overrule a director on a point of law. And if the ruling never gets to a committee (perhaps none is available), well... What do you do if the TD is wrong? It happens. I've seen it several times at ACBL club level. Yet it seems [L93C] that the only recourse is to appeal to the National Authority (in the ACBL, the LC). Seems a lot of work (not to mention the fact that the guidance I've seen tasks the TD to prepare the case for the NA) for a club ruling, but how else to convince a stubborn TD he's made a mistake? I suppose the alternative is to "vote with your feet", but that doesn't feel right, either. 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 Feb 5 06:17:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14JHht03976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:17:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14JHWH03955 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:17:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.157]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g14J83u13602 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:08:03 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5EDC24.8040008@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:08:20 +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] 3rd seat opening References: <20020204140000-r01010800-707936c0-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:42 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > >>considering that the WBF regulation is basically the same - would we want to? >> > > Would you argue along the lines that the WBF makes the laws, therefore the WBF > can make whatever regulations they like? Or would you say that having made the > laws, the WBF ought to comply with them, just as any NCBO should? > > Personally, I'd argue the latter. > So would I, but I'm being practical here. I am not sure that the WBF regulation contravenes the WBF lawbook. It looks that way, I I think it does, but who am I? Anyway, the text is not completely certain, so as long as no-one in the WBFLC objects to the actions of the WBFSC, I am concluding that the WBF systems policy does not contravene the laws. And I conclude that the NZ and BE regulations don't contravene either. > 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 > > -- 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 Feb 5 06:18:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14JIEP04055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:18:14 +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 g14JI5H04038 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:18:05 +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 g14J90u29990; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:09:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:00:21 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020204140900-r01010800-ffaea801-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:14 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support > a minority position. Why "irrelevant"? 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 Feb 5 06:26:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14JPtj05336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:25:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14JPTH05259 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:25:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14JGUT00439 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:16:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020204131512.00a2c0d0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 13:17:57 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:35 PM 2/3/02 +0000, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 >winning Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? > >Best regards, >Fearghal. Absent an official ruling in your area to the contrary, this is the right ruling, yes. [And I am lenient on claims.] Of course, I don't think there _should_ be a ruling in your area, because I think the laws are better left based on 'equity' than based on rigorous decison-proceedures. But what do I know? Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 06:42:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Jg5a05557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:42:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14JfvH05553 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:41:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-454.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.198]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 00D891D5188 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:32:56 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:29:32 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <003501c1ad51$ce06e880$ee39e150@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott writes: > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a >master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow >providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing >so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players >will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when >they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is >an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ When this was discussed on BLML recently, was the point not made that the size of the trump is relevant? With spades trumps, a declarer holding SA DAK might be assumed always to play SA first in case a trump is lingering. OTOH holding S2 DAK this would be pointless. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 06:55:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Jswd06038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:54:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14JsmH06022 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:54:48 +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 g14Jjku00327 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:45:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:42:46 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C5EDC24.8040008@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020204144545-r01010800-99de8464-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 8:08 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > So would I, but I'm being practical here. > > I am not sure that the WBF regulation contravenes the WBF > lawbook. It looks that way, I I think it does, but who am I? > Anyway, the text is not completely certain, so as long as > no-one in the WBFLC objects to the actions of the WBFSC, I > am concluding that the WBF systems policy does not > contravene the laws. > > And I conclude that the NZ and BE regulations don't > contravene either. I'm not sure I understand this attitude at all. The members of the WBFLC put their pants on the same way you and I do. That no one on that committee has objected to the policy does *not* lead to the conclusion that it's legal. The only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the facts in evidence here is that the LC haven't considered the question. If they *have* considered it, and said it's okay, that's a different story, but no one here has said they've done so. It has occurred to me a couple of times, reading various regulations, that the writers of those regulations either didn't think about third and fourth seat openings at all, or that it didn't occur to them that such openings are fundamentally different from first and second seat openings. I can see a novice not considering the difference, but I can't believe the lawmakers don't at least know that there *is* a difference. Yet there's no reflection of that in many regulations. Yeah, I know. Then they'd be "more complicated". Better that than silly. 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 Feb 5 07:10:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14K7Me08020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:07:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14K7DH07990 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:07:14 +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 g14JwT507954 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:58:29 -0900 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:55:56 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204104241.024545c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >This provides the mathematical approach to determining 'balanced-ness', ^^^ I think in this one word we can sum up the source of the disagreement. "The mathematical approach" is to pick any of an infinity of possible methods for measuring 'balancedness' and use it to generate such a list as you've given below. > >giving an index ranging from 4333: 0.433 to (13)000: 5.629. > >Set out below are the fifteen most frquently occurring distributions > >(accounting for nearly 97% of all hands) with their indices. Which metric to use depends largely on why you are making the measurement. In bridge, my principal reason to say to my partner "I have a balanced hand" is to say "your high cards will help me no matter which suit they are in"; my principal reason to make a splinter bid is to say "partner, the king and queen of this suit are worthless to me." I have appended two columns to the table. The first is the HCP total of the kings and queens which are rendered less useful by being opposite shortness; the second is the HCP total including aces and jacks. Notice that using this practical method, 6322 is 'more balanced' than 5431, because it threatens two queens, rather than a queen and a king. Note also tht 5431-with-a-singleton-king is 'more balanced' than an ordinary 5431 because you already know where the king is and you therefore don't need to warn partner not to count full value for it if he holds it. (It may well be a wasted value, but you include that in your assessment of your own strength.) How to evaluate an ace opposite a void is a sticky question. I honestly don't know whether 5440 "feels" more balanced to me than 6421 does or not. > > 4 3 3 3 0.433 0 3 > > 4 4 3 2 0.829 2 3 > > 5 3 3 2 1.090 2 5 > > 5 4 2 2 1.299 4 6 > > 4 4 4 1 1.299 5 5 > > 5 4 3 1 1.479 5 6 > > 6 3 2 2 1.639 4 7 > > 6 3 3 1 1.785 5 8 > > 5 5 2 1 1.785 7 9 > > 6 4 2 1 1.920 7 9 > > 5 4 4 0 1.920 5 10 * > > 5 5 3 0 2.046 5 11 * > > 6 4 3 0 2.165 5 11 * > > 7 2 2 2 2.165 6 9 > > 7 3 2 1 2.278 7 9 > > > >To our non-EBU friends it may not be clear from this thread, that in the EBU > >even at OB Level 4 a 1NT opening may not, by agreement, be opened with a > >singleton (unless it is artificial, 19+, permitted at L3 & above). It must > >conform to OB 12.5.3 and must therefore be (a) balanced (4333, 4432 or 5332) > >or (b) balanced or semi-balanced (5422 or 6332). Indeed, to this non-EBU friend it is not clear why the EBU thinks it has any authority at all to regulate a 1NT bid that conveys no message other than "I want to play in notrump", regardless of what strength (if 8+) or distribution it might be. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 07:27:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14KQlQ11459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:26:47 +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 (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g14KQcH11442 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:26:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12768 invoked by uid 504); 4 Feb 2002 20:12:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 3.897134 secs); 04 Feb 2002 20:12:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.143) by 0 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 20:12:03 -0000 Message-ID: <012401c1adb8$e5c70e20$9e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020204140000-r01010800-707936c0-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C5EDC24.8040008@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:16:26 +1300 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: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On 2/4/02 at 12:42 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > > > > >>considering that the WBF regulation is basically the same - would we want to? > >> > > > > Would you argue along the lines that the WBF makes the laws, therefore the WBF > > can make whatever regulations they like? Or would you say that having made the > > laws, the WBF ought to comply with them, just as any NCBO should? > > > > Personally, I'd argue the latter. > > > > > So would I, but I'm being practical here. > > I am not sure that the WBF regulation contravenes the WBF > lawbook. It looks that way, I I think it does, but who am I? > Anyway, the text is not completely certain, so as long as > no-one in the WBFLC objects to the actions of the WBFSC, I > am concluding that the WBF systems policy does not > contravene the laws. > > And I conclude that the NZ and BE regulations don't > contravene either. " 2.1 Highly Unusual Methods Highly Unusual Methods are utilised in any System which exhibits one or more of the following features as a matter of partnership agreement: a) A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10 HCP) b) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. c) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows (a) either length or shortage in a specified suit or (b) either length in one suit or length in another " The language in the WBF regulation quoted above is much more Law book abiding. Is this the current regulation? I can agree with a King below average strength with the difficulties of calculating that strength because that is the language in the Law book. But a 'Rule of 18' that is almost an average strength hand - average hcp = 10 and average length of suits are (to 1dp) 4.9, 3.7, 2.7, 1.7 in order of length. So the average length of the longest two suits is about 8.6 and adding an average number of hcp give 18.6 I am sure that a 'Rule of 18' does contravene the law book. A plain language reading of the law shows that there is no right to regulate nearly average non-conventional calls. > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > 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 Tue Feb 5 07:40:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14KeHs13855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:40:17 +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 g14Ke9H13834 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:40:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20198 invoked by uid 504); 4 Feb 2002 20:25:38 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.850555 secs); 04 Feb 2002 20:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.143) by 0 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 20:25:36 -0000 Message-ID: <012e01c1adba$ca3cf780$9e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Olympiad Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:30:28 +1300 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 " Brown Sticker Conventions ========================= ... (b) An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. ..." "CATEGORY 3 Olympiad (Round-Robin), all Pairs Championships, Junior Teams Championships, Rosenblum Cup and McConnell Cup (short matches), Transnational events and the IOC Grand Prix. The use of both HUM systems and Brown Sticker conventions is prohibited." Was this regulation in force in Maastricht? Did the Italian pair Duboin Bocchi not play there Canape overcalls in the round robin? It seems that their partnership allowed 3-card overcalls: Bocchi overcalled 1s over 1c on board 13 of the final with: A95 64 A109842 74 But I don't know about the round robin. TIA Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 07:41:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Kf0f13962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:41:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14KejH13933 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:40:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g14KUxN01846; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: <00b901c1adba$df380f80$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:30:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brambledown" : > > Grattan Endicott writes: > > > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a > >master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow > >providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing > >so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players > >will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when > >they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is > >an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > When this was discussed on BLML recently, was the point not made that the > size of the trump is relevant? With spades trumps, a declarer holding SA > DAK might be assumed always to play SA first in case a trump is lingering. > OTOH holding S2 DAK this would be pointless. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) And wouldn't then the "natural" play be to first play the single trump he has left when he is convinced that even if there should still be a forgotten trump with one of the defenders his own trump is certainly the highest. I am still looking out for a plausible reason why first playing his last trump when he believes he has three high cards could be irrational. (Regardless of his level of competence). 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 Feb 5 07:54:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14KsAx16447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:54:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14Ks2H16429 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:54:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:45:03 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000b01c1ac40$41c812c0$b216b9d2@laptop> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:01:33 -0600 To: "Wayne Burrows" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2002 20:45:03.0733 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2550A50:01C1ADBC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi > >Do your partnerships allow a 3rd chair opening on: > >AKQJ >xxx >xxx >xxx > >In case you are wondering there is a laws question to follow. > >Wayne Burrows >10 Glen Place >Palmerston North >New Zealand > Sure does. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 09:36:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14MZjk06183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:35:45 +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 g14MZbH06169 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:35:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA01536 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA19347 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202042226.RAA19347@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Wayne Burrows" > But a 'Rule of 18' that > is almost an average strength hand - average hcp = 10 and > average length of suits are (to 1dp) 4.9, 3.7, 2.7, 1.7 in > order of length. So the average length of the longest two > suits is about 8.6 and adding an average number of hcp > give 18.6 Interesting, and better than the simpler calculation (wherein an "average hand" is taken to be 4432 with 10 points). It seems that SO's can demand that opening 1-bids conform to "rule of 16" but not "rule of 18." Of course they can always prohibit later use of conventions. :-( -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 10:55:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14No1Q19414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:50:01 +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 g14NnhH19377 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:44 +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 16Xsj0-0008sn-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:18:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession References: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> <20020204135100-r01010800-a6107176-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020204135100-r01010800-a6107176-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:02 PM, olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) >wrote: > >> Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. > >Seems to me it's unethical to agree one down, when you know damn well the queen >will fall under the king. If you are certain this will happen then you have no problem: the TD will rule that way. The fact that some TDs will not, and some members of BLML will not, suggest it is not so obvious. I don't think we are going to agree on anything here, except that there is more than one view. You can argue that *every* declarer will always cash the high trump *now*, and let him take all the tricks. You can argue that *some* declarers would either play a small trump "knowing" they had to lose a trick, or that *some* declarers might play other suits, giving the player with a trump the chance to ruff. Both arguments have some validity: both arguments are considered by some of their proponents to be completely obvious! But I do not think it can possibly be unethical to accept a trick that some TDs and ACs would grant 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 Feb 5 10:55:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14NnxC19407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:59 +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 g14NnWH19341 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:33 +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 16Xsip-0008sq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:40:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: > >> It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support >> a minority position. > >It is highly relevant analysis. What is the problem with saying "A >minority of players believe 1444/1345 to be semi-balanced while the >majority believes them to be unbalanced - both sides can make a reasonable >case for their interpretation. In recognition of this the bridge >authorities should give clarification when using the term semi-balanced.*" > >*Just as the EBU does in the orange book. Surely you can see that if such >clarification wasn't given maybe 20-30% of players would interpret the >phrase differently from the other 70-80%. How can that be good? I do not believe the number would be anything like that high - and practically every term used in bridge has some number of people who mean something else by it. We are dealing with normal bridge terms. >PS, Minority opinions aren't always wrong. No, but they tend to be very unhelpful when they are to use names to define things differently. Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving which I remember from my youth, or calling a defence to1NT Cansino when it is nothing like Cansino as occurred in an RGB thread of a couple of months ago do not help. This is different from minority opinions from what is the best way to bid, or rule: that is fine. We can disagree, but it does no harm. But refusing to follow normal definitions does no good. -- 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 Feb 5 10:55:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14No3t19418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:50:03 +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-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 g14NnhH19379 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:44 +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 16Xsiz-0008so-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:12:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <3c5e9a35.6232.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c5e9a35.6232.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes >On a similare theme > >S xxx >H Jxx >D KJxx >C Jxx > >3rd in hand NV. Mad dog would probably open 2S or some other zia type bid. > I opened 1D. They stopped in 4H+3. Our team mates 6H+1. > >3rd in hand NV is a classic spot for sub minimum openers. To wack a rule of >18 in there is basically giving the finger to "creative" bridge. Infact in >this position and vul pd & I have now started to alert this as quite possibly >light as the frequency it occurs is very high. Even Vul it hardly ever pays >to go P P P. The question is what action you would take if the Irish authorities deemed this to be illegal? -- 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 Feb 5 10:55:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14Nnr719395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:53 +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-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 g14NnXH19344 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:34 +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 16Xsip-0008sp-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:59:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <20020204140900-r01010800-ffaea801-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020204140900-r01010800-ffaea801-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 12:14 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support >> a minority position. > >Why "irrelevant"? Because the definition of balanced and semi-balanced quoted over the years by a very large variety of authorities has a different basis. Suppose I say that the definition of a balanced hand should depend on the similarity of such hands to tax brackets in Ghana: is it relevant because I have said so despite all the authorities 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 Tue Feb 5 10:55:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14NnsG19400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g14NnVH19334 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:35 +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 16Xsip-0008so-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:56:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204104241.024545c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >Indeed, to this non-EBU friend it is not clear why the EBU thinks it has >any authority at all to regulate a 1NT bid that conveys no message other >than "I want to play in notrump", regardless of what strength (if 8+) or >distribution it might be. Perhaps for the same reason as the ACBL has regulations in the same area? -- 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 Feb 5 10:55:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g14No5W19422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:50:05 +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-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 g14NnYH19346 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:34 +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 16Xsiq-0008sr-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:40:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:10:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] References: <20020204140005-r01010800-60a18fc7-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020204140005-r01010800-60a18fc7-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 1:39 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Similarly, I am not sure this hand should prove they are playing a HUM >> system. > >Perhaps there is a wider question here. Law 93B says that an appeals committee >may not overrule a director on a point of law. And if the ruling never gets to a >committee (perhaps none is available), well... This is not a point of Law, it is a judgement. I was merely stating my judgement, so it could be appealed if I was the TD. >What do you do if the TD is wrong? It happens. I've seen it several times at >ACBL club level. Yet it seems [L93C] that the only recourse is to appeal to the >National Authority (in the ACBL, the LC). Seems a lot of work (not to mention >the fact that the guidance I've seen tasks the TD to prepare the case for the >NA) for a club ruling, but how else to convince a stubborn TD he's made a >mistake? That's a practical problem, but basically just appeal. It is extremely rare for a ruling to have no judgement involved. Of course, I hear there are clubs with no appeal method at all [apart from Memphis]. I think you have to apply some pressure inside the club if the TD is continuously wrong, perhaps to get a local AC if nothing else. -- 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 Feb 5 11:26:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g150P4625197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:25:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g150OtH25176 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:24:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA13452 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA19519 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:15:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:15:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202050015.TAA19519@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > But I do not think it can possibly be unethical to accept a trick that > some TDs and ACs would grant you. This seems right. L72A2 says "could not lose." I take that to mean "by any legal line of play," but that isn't stated. Personally, as defender, I would never accept the trick. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 11:29:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g150SVe25819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:28:31 +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 g150SMH25791 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:28:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA13603 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA19530 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:19:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:19:23 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202050019.TAA19530@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving... Over here, Lavinthal and Revolving are two different methods. (Was that your point?) I don't recall hearing one called the other, although many players have never heard of Revolving and think it's the same as Lavinthal. I certainly agree it is unhelpful to use the same name for different things. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 11:36:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g150ZLt27236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:35:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g150ZDH27218 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:35:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA13794 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:26:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA19605 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:26:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:26:14 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202050026.TAA19605@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > Remarkably, the ACBL doesn't do this on its current cards; ACBL-standard > cards have the ACBL logo on the back, with a spade that can be pointed up > or down. When I was a lad in school, a common saying from my teachers was "No human being is completely useless. At worst, you can always serve as a bad example." (I am not sure why they always looked directly at me whenever they said this!) I guess the ACBL is not completely useless. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 11:42:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g150eaL28275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:40:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g150eRH28257 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:40:28 +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 16XtW9-000IGU-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:31:26 +0000 Message-ID: <$QE1GoFPfyX8Ew2H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:31:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <200202050019.TAA19530@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200202050019.TAA19530@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 >> Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving... > >Over here, Lavinthal and Revolving are two different methods. (Was >that your point?) I don't recall hearing one called the other, >although many players have never heard of Revolving and think it's the >same as Lavinthal. > >I certainly agree it is unhelpful to use the same name for different >things. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. We have always had two forms of discards, Revolving, and Lavinthal [also called Mckenney to show that Hy Lavinthal invented them]. About twenty years ago an august publication decided to call them Revolving type 1 and Revolving type 2 in an effort to assist mind- blowing confusion. The also renamed Aardvark Lebensohl so we had two different Lebensohl conventions. I would not like to tell you what that publication is called now .... -- 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 Feb 5 11:48:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g150kvC29520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:46:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g150klH29487 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:46:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-15-245.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.15.245] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16XtcI-0006OF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:37:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3C5F295A.B36D0474@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:37:46 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Brambledown writes > > > A 6322 hand may feel more balanced than either > >4441 or 5431, possibly because we are distracted by the presence of > >singletons, but mathematically it is not. > > Since 6322 is "clearly" more balanced than 4441 or 5431 that shows why > your approach must be wrong. I don't know what you mean by "clearly" more balanced, but it certainly doesn't seem to be "intuitively" so. Most beginners I teach think of 4441 hands as balanced , and find it puzzling that we regard them as less so than hands with longer suits. > > > The basic idea is that the more a hand is balanced, the more it is > suitable for a certain approach to bidding, and the reverse. Thus the > definitions are based on the correct way to bid in various people's > minds, and that is not based on standard deviations. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Feb 5 12:14:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g151CnN03732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:12:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g151CZH03687 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:12:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-46.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.46]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B7379D41 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:03:32 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:00:06 -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: > It certainly makes no difference: balanced-ness is nothing to do with > mathematics. You might just well say life has nothing to do with mathematics. I might judge someone tall or heavy and for most purposes this would suffice. If, however, I want to know 'how tall, or 'how heavy' and, in particular, 'taller' or 'heavier' than someone else, then obviously I would need to measure 'tallness' or 'heavy-ness' and no-one has any difficulty underatanding that someone is 2 metres tall or 195 pounds in weight. Here we are discussing 'balanced-ness' and for this we need a measure of dispersion. Todd Zimnoch suggested using standard deviations which is obviously sensible. > Since 6322 is "clearly" more balanced than 4441 or 5431 that shows why > your approach must be wrong. Who says it's "clearly" more balanced? In the interval at a County Swiss Teams yesterday, I put the question to about a dozen bridge players and opinions were about evenly divided. One of those who thought that 6322 was least balanced, seeking to convince one of the 4441ers argued "Take each of the six suit combinations in turn and add up the differences in suit lengths"( so for 4333 you would get 1+1+1+0+0+0 =3). Now for 6322 you get 3+4+4+1+1+0 = 13, but with the better balanced. 4441 you get 3+3+3+0+0+0 = only 9. But this is 'mathematics' again, so I suppose you will dismiss this as more rubbish. IMO, 6322 is "clearly" *less* balanced than either 4441 or 5431. I think bridge players can have difficulty seeing this because they are conditioned to thinking "unbalanced" as soon as they see a singleton or void. However, as you rightly say, none of this is necessarily relevant to the problem of framing bridge regulations, so how about addressing my final 'bridge specific' point. Note to anyone concerned with EBU OB Regs: We are allowed an opening 2N "that on occasion may contain a singleton" (OB 12.7.1(b)) (not alertable -OB 5.4.4(j), but must be mentioned on CC). Isn't there much to be said for extending this approach to a 1NT opening? Almost everyone occasionally opens 1NT with a singleton. It is inevitably referred to the TD and we are immediately into the deviation/psyche/frequency/disclosure areas. If my opponents want to open 1NT with an appropriate range 4441, I would far rather they did it honestly with full disclosure than sneak it in under the guise of a deviation/psyche as at present ("my partner was as surprised as you" - yeah, yeah). Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 12:14:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g151Cn803736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:12:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g151CZH03690 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:12:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-46.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.46]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 76F4F9E03 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:03:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:00:08 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Tim West-meads writes: >> DWS wrote: >> If the confusion has come about from using a word not in the regs then >> that is different - but that was not what you said earlier. We do not >> use the word convention - that is for the Law book. English players >> have no need of the term convention: they can leave that to Directors, >> law-makers, regulation-makers and members of BLML. > Players do need to know. Brambledown, for instance, has formed the > impression that it is illegal to open a non-conventional, happy to play > 1NT if the partnership understands that it might contain a singleton. > Players need to know that such a regulation is outwith the powers to > regulate of their SO or they too may form similarly erroneous opinions. OB 12.5.3 is unequivocal and there is nothing in the least erroneous in my reading of it. A natural 1NT must be either balanced (4333, 4432 or 5332) or balanced or semi-balanced (6322 or 5422). If you elect, even at L4, to open 1NT with a singleton, then (since you are not allowed to have agreed to do this) you are deviating from your agreed system. This, of course, is permitted subject to the conditions of L75B. However, "habitual violations ... may create implicit agreements". Since the agreement would be illegal, so therefore, must habitual violations! What I think is happening here is that at some clubs, where psyches are common place, 1NT openers with singletons pass by without much notice. I suspect, however, in the vast majority of clubs, where psyches are rare, such a bid would draw an immediate complaint, and in many cases would earn an almost automatic adjustment from the TD. In my experience, most bridge players know (better than a lot of the Laws) "that you can't open 1NT with a singleton" and would not dream of doing so. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 12:26:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g151PIU05868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:25:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g151P9H05847 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:25:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g151Gtw08904 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:16:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:14:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 snip >> When you open 1NT on your 1=3=4-5 your bid is natural for alerting >> purposes so it is not alertable under 5.2.1[a]. Of course it is >> alertable under 5.2.1[c] so I wonder what we are talking about. > >Are you suggesting that people are "unlikely to expect" 1NT openings on eg >K,KJxx,KT9x,KTxx or KQx,K,KTxx,QTxxx? Would you disagree with a pick-up >partner who judged to open such hands with 1NT? > >But OK, I will ask partners to alert all my 1NTs in future. > Duly noted:) cheers john >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/ -- 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 Feb 5 18:09:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1577oH04192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:07:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1577gH04177 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:07:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 31250 invoked by uid 504); 5 Feb 2002 06:53:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 5.734594 secs); 05 Feb 2002 06:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.173) by 0 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 06:53:01 -0000 Message-ID: <029d01c1ae12$710e6e20$9e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com><006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona><000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop><00e301c1adb2$2974f800$9e16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:57:53 +1300 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: Wayne Burrows Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > Hi Wayne > > >> >"Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods > >> > > >> >A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: > >> > > >> >... > >> > > >> >b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet the Rule of 18 > >> >(the number of high card points plus the number of cards in the 2 longest > >> >suits of the hand.) > >> > > >> >..." > >> > > >> > >> Of course, you are assuming they are playing a HUM system. I am not > >> at all sure that that is true. A pair has a set of agreements that are > >> either legal or not. When a special hand comes along I do not think > >> that you can say because a player would do such and such therefore his > >> agreements are such and such. Despite the restraints of his system he > >> is there to play bridge. > > > >If this hand or something similar comes up from time to time then an > >implicit agreement could easily develop and I suggest that for this > >type of hand such an agreement would easily develop. > > Yes, but there is no evidence this will happen. you have quoted an > extreme hand, which will not recur. perhaps next time it willbe > > AKQJ > xxx > xxx > Jxx > > or > > AKQJ > xxx > xxxx > xx > > both of which are Rule of 18. or AKQx xxx xxx xxx or AKJx xxx xxx xxx which are worse (more deviant). > > You must *not* fall into the Southern California approach of thinking > one hand constitutes an agreement. > I thought the American approach was one instance of a bid created an agreement. This is a different beast. That is they say: "If you bid this way once with this type of hand then that creates an agreement." I disagree with that approach but here I am saying that a pair that will always open a particular hand (or something very similar) has an agreement or very soon with develop an implicit agreement. Here are examples to illustrate the difference: Once I opened 1nt in third seat with a balanced four count. I am not sure if I will ever do that again even though it happened to be successful but I might. I am certain that I do not have an agreement to open that or a similar hand even with the partner that I had on that occassion. On the other hand I don't think I have ever held the hand I wrote about AKQJ xxx xxx xxx but I know that I would open 1S and I expect most of my partner's to expect that as a possibility. Therefore I think we have at least an implicit agreement that I will open that hand. In fact one (unfamiliar) partner recently complained that I did not open a much worse hand such was his expectation of our implicit agreements. > >> The hand does not meet the limits for an opening 1S bid in the EBU, > >> even at Level 4, but I would not rule that a pair was using an illegal > >> system because on a very special and unusual hand they appear to be > >> outside the limits. > >> > >> Similarly, I am not sure this hand should prove they are playing a HUM > >> system. > > > >The language in the the regulation above is quite strong. I paraphrase if > >the opening bid *might not* meet the Rule of 18 then it is a HUM. > > Fine: but you do not have sufficient evidence they are playing such a > system. > Easily sorted. Director: Will you open AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or similar in 3rd chair? Would you also expect partner to open those hands? Player: Yes Director: Then you have an agreement that the administrators have in their wisdom designated as a HUM. Of course a player may answer 'No' but I would expect a player to cooperate. If a player answered 'No' then that player (partnership) would be severely limited in making any light 3rd in hand openings. In fact just asking if that hand met their requirements for a 3rd in hand opening bid would determine if they had an agreement. > -- > Cheers, David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 18:22:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g157KvS05802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:20:57 +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 (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g157KnH05781 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:20:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6058 invoked by uid 504); 5 Feb 2002 07:06:14 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 2.733442 secs); 05 Feb 2002 07:06:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.173) by 0 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 07:06:11 -0000 Message-ID: <02a701c1ae14$47eedd20$9e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200202042226.RAA19347@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:11:03 +1300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > But a 'Rule of 18' that > > is almost an average strength hand - average hcp = 10 and > > average length of suits are (to 1dp) 4.9, 3.7, 2.7, 1.7 in > > order of length. So the average length of the longest two > > suits is about 8.6 and adding an average number of hcp > > give 18.6 > > Interesting, and better than the simpler calculation (wherein an > "average hand" is taken to be 4432 with 10 points). It seems that SO's > can demand that opening 1-bids conform to "rule of 16" but not "rule of > 18." 18.6 - 3 = 15.6 They are allowed to regulate King or more below average so I think "rule of 16" is less than a King below average. "Rule of 15" would be okay but "Rule of 16" is too good if they insist on using that sort of definition. Of course in reality there is no universally accurate quantitative measure of hand evaluation. As John Wignall chairman of the WBF systems Committee said in a private email on this topic "The truth is that bridge is a game requiring judgement and players will differ in their assessment of what is an opening bid." My view is that players should be allowed reasonable freedom in exercising this judgement and hence the boundaries of regulation should be a significant distance from what is commonly accepted as an opening bid (even a third seat opening) so that the players can exercise that judgement (or in other words be allowed to play bridge). > > Of course they can always prohibit later use of conventions. :-( > -- Or throw a tantrum if they don't get their own way. 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 Tue Feb 5 18:29:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g157SEX07038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:28:14 +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-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 g157S0H07013 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:28:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.197] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XzsZ-000FMj-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:19:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1ae15$be988f60$c533e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020204144545-r01010800-99de8464-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:12:39 -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" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > That no one on that committee has objected to the policy does > *not* lead to the conclusion that it's legal. The only legitimate > conclusion to be drawn from the facts in evidence here is that > the LC haven't considered the question. If they *have* > considered it, and said it's okay, that's a different story, but > no one here has said they've done so. > +=+ This is a misleading statement. The minutes of the WBF Systems Committee are given to the WBF Executive for ratification (as are those of the WBFLC). The WBFLC may make a representation to the Executive about their contents if it wishes, but this is unlikely to happen since there is adequate overlap between the two committees. Otherwise it is the Executive whose ratification gives authority to the work of both committees. +=+ > > It has occurred to me a couple of times, reading various > regulations, that the writers of those regulations either didn't > think about third and fourth seat openings at all, or that it > didn't occur to them that such openings are fundamentally > different from first and second seat openings. I can see a > novice not considering the difference, but I can't believe the > lawmakers don't at least know that there *is* a difference. > Yet there's no reflection of that in many regulations. > +=+ If there is an agreement that bids in third/fourth positions have different values from those in first/second, is this disclosed on the CC? The meaning of a call is whatever it is stated to be on the CC. ~ 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 Feb 5 18:29:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g157SBY07035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:28:11 +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-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 g157RwH07007 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:27:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.197] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16XzsX-000FMj-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:18:58 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c1ae15$bd62ce80$c533e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> <3C5E73BF.2090207@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:47:29 -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" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > > > The laws allow Zonal authorities to regulate light openings > > (King or more below average strength) and to delegate > > that right. But we have seen that many organisations > > have made rules that 'stretch', to say the least, that > > right. > > > > The NZCBA has decreed: > > > > "Yellow Systems - Highly Unusual Methods > > > > A system exhibiting one or more of the following features: > > > > b) An opening suit bid at the 1 level which might not meet > > the Rule of 18 (the number of high card points plus the > > number of cards in the 2 longest suits of the hand.) > > > > .. --------------------- \x/ ----------------" > > > Considering that the WBF regulation and the NZ regulation > have probably been written by the same person, I'd say > you'd be damned if you tried to argue that it were not. > > Of course there is a problem with wording. Is the WBF > regulation conform the WBF Law book ? It would appear > not, and yet it exists. > > > > How do we get NCO's to comply with the limitations > > of their right to regulate? > > > considering that the WBF regulation is basically the > same - would we want to? > +=+ I am puzzled. In what way is it suggested the WBF regulation does not conform to the law book? In what way is the WBF System Policy 'basically the same' as the one from NZ? Under the WBF System Policy one or more of four conditions makes a system HUM. These are, as matters of partnership agreement: 1. A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10 HCP). 2. An opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. 3. An opening bid at the one level may be made with values a King or more below average strength. 4.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows (a) either length or shortage in a specified suit or (b) either length in one suit or length in another. In regulating these agreements does the WBF exercise powers not given it by the laws of the game? Easiest to answer is (3): refer to Law 40D. As for (4) the bid is conventional. So we return to nos. 1 & 2. In these cases regulation is lawful since the pass is noted to be conventional. ~ 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 Feb 5 19:09:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1587g212763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:07:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1587XH12747 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:07:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.62.208] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Y0Uq-0005tC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:58:33 +0000 Message-ID: <002701c1ae1b$451d9080$c533e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <3C5F295A.B36D0474@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 08:00:26 -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: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > > > The basic idea is that the more a hand is balanced, > > the more it is suitable for a certain approach to bidding, > > and the reverse. Thus the definitions are based on the > > correct way to bid in various people's minds, and that is > > not based on standard deviations. > +=+ I think 'balanced' and 'semi-balanced' portray images in the minds of top level officialdom forty years ago. They did not regard 1NT with less than a doubleton in any suit as a 'natural' opening bid. If these terms are used there is a need to define them so that they have meaning. In the absence of a formal definition by those who use them the definition is established by precedent, which, in bridge, usually can be found in the records of appeals. I will make a note for the WBF jurisprudence that newer generations have lost sight of the historical precedents. ~ 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 Feb 5 19:29:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g158RKT15584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:27:20 +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 (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g158RCH15568 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:27:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12004 invoked by uid 504); 5 Feb 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 47.008706 secs); 05 Feb 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.173) by 0 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 08:11:49 -0000 Message-ID: <031501c1ae1d$821e6840$9e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020204144545-r01010800-99de8464-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <000b01c1ae15$be988f60$c533e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:06:34 +1300 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: Ed Reppert ; Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "No pasaran!" - Dolores Ibarruri > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > > +=+ If there is an agreement that bids in third/fourth positions > have different values from those in first/second, is this disclosed > on the CC? The meaning of a call is whatever it is stated to be on > the CC. ~ G ~ +=+ > That last statement seems to me to be overly simplistic. There are many calls that are not precisely defined on most CC. Indeed a CC often has too little space to provide details of judgement or style not to mention variations in seat. 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 Tue Feb 5 21:00:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g159x1m01437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:59:01 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g159wqH01415 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:58:52 +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 KAA26908; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:46:59 +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 KAA28336; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205104742.00a7c0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:53:08 +0100 To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: <012401c1adb8$e5c70e20$9e16b9d2@laptop> References: <20020204140000-r01010800-707936c0-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C5EDC24.8040008@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:16 5/02/2002 +1300, Wayne Burrows wrote: >I can agree with a King below average strength with the >difficulties of calculating that strength because that >is the language in the Law book. But a 'Rule of 18' that >is almost an average strength hand - average hcp = 10 and >average length of suits are (to 1dp) 4.9, 3.7, 2.7, 1.7 in >order of length. So the average length of the longest two >suits is about 8.6 and adding an average number of hcp >give 18.6 > >I am sure that a 'Rule of 18' does contravene the law book. AG : the hand that launched this thread - AKQJ and 333 small - has 4 sure tricks if played in its best suit. I'd guess this is about the average value. In fact, the poor ditribution is compensated by the location of honors, something the Rule of 18 doesn't take into account. If you need an average hand, or very slightly below average (18 vs 18.6) to open the bidding, this hand should be tolerated. As any simple rule, R18 makes a little too much use of Occam's Razor. This diesn't necessarily mean it's evil. But sure, if I was called to adjudicate a "going against R18" TD call, I wouldn't feel comfortable in disallowing the opening. 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 Feb 5 21:21:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15AJZD05514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:19:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15AJQH05494 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:19:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA03346; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:09:46 +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 LAA21798; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:10:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205105735.00a82ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:13:42 +0100 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:00 5/02/2002 +0000, Brambledown wrote: >Note to anyone concerned with EBU OB Regs: We are allowed an opening 2N >"that on occasion may contain a singleton" (OB 12.7.1(b)) (not alertable -OB >5.4.4(j), but must be mentioned on CC). Isn't there much to be said for >extending this approach to a 1NT opening? Almost everyone occasionally >opens 1NT with a singleton. It is inevitably referred to the TD and we are >immediately into the deviation/psyche/frequency/disclosure areas. AG : one solution would be to allow a pair to deviate one card from the announced distribution when the hand 'feels like it' ; that is, bid as if one small card from a suit was a small card in another suit. This would be subject to pre-alert or inscription in the 'General approach and style' section of the CC. The same would be true for 1-point distortions. On some of my CCs is written in bold capitals : *Gen. note : very weak suit systematically downgraded by 1 card in many situations* . The notesheets mention examples : opening 1m on a honorless 5-card major ; opening a Multi with a weakish 7-carder ; bypassing a honorless major to respond 1NT to 1C or to a TOX etc. Such announcements would : 1) be quite fair to the opponents 2) avoid the 'oh surprise' playlet 3) simplify many regulations It would, of course, give some work to TDs, which will have to decide whether some deviation was within the range of the announcement. Perhaps some 30% rule could be at work here. If at least 30% of consulted players would give at least serious thought to the deviation, it would be allowed. Obviously, opening 1NT on a 4441 or 5431 hand including a bare K or Q in a major (the example many of us gave) would. Doing it with a bare spot card is less obvious. Opening 1NT on AKQJxx - AJx - xx - xx would not, even if the hand is 'semi-balanced' according to the official rules. Best regards, Alain. > If my >opponents want to open 1NT with an appropriate range 4441, I would far >rather they did it honestly with full disclosure than sneak it in under the >guise of a deviation/psyche as at present ("my partner was as surprised as >you" - yeah, yeah). > >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 5 21:48:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15AkUV10498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:46:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk ([194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15AkLH10468 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:46:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g15AbKW23644 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:37:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: Bramble wrote: > OB 12.5.3 is unequivocal and there is nothing in the least erroneous in > my reading of it. A natural 1NT must be either balanced (4333, 4432 or > 5332) or balanced or semi-balanced (6322 or 5422). It doesn't matter what a natural 1 NT is defined as in the orange book. It is clear from basic logic that 1NT (12-14) to play opposite balanced 0-9.5 is not conventional. OK so it's not "natural" either but that doesn't matter. On re-reading it does matter! The only conventions apparently permitted over a non-natural non-conventional 1NT are Stayman, Blackwood, Gerber, Grand Slam Invitation (all permitted from level 1 upwards). The EBU is not permitted to regulate non-convential openings unless they are a King below average strength - clearly not the case with 12-14 HCPs. More to the point the EBU should not even be attempting regulations that prevent players using judgement. To be honest I'm absolutely amazed that so many people apparently don't even consider opening 1NT if they hold eg KJxx,A,KTxx,QT9x. Nor should the authorities be encouraging people to "open 1NT with a singleton, and call it deviating from your agreed system" - decent players know when it is right to make these openings (indeed if you switched seats their partners would often choose the same bid). All that does is make disclosure harder. By all means say "opening 1NTs that may contain a singleton are alertable". (Even pre-alertable, and whether singelton must be A/K/Q to be clear on CC). Use the proverbial "back door" if you really must by not licensing any conventions thereafter. But don't try telling me that the EBU can legally regulate my non-conventional 1NT. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 00:34:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15DX9412832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:33:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15DWwH12812 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g15DNox22385; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:50 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:23:50 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g15DNoE06942; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:50 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:23:50 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03720; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:49 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA10229; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:49 GMT Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:49 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202051323.NAA10229@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim writes: > > On re-reading it does matter! The only conventions apparently permitted > over a non-natural non-conventional 1NT are Stayman, Blackwood, Gerber, > Grand Slam Invitation (all permitted from level 1 upwards). > It's not really relevant, but it is not (explicitly) the case that everything permitted at level 1 is permitted at higher levels. The relevant text is OB10.1.1: In order to provide the right kind of competition for every level of player, the EBU has created five categories of permitted conventions which are, in order of complexity: * Level 1, which has various types * Level 2, which can also be used in * Level 3, which can also be used in * Level 4, and also * Level 5, which has various types. So level 2 is permitted at levels 3 and 4, and level 3 is permitted at level 4; but level 1 and level 5 are independent of levels 2, 3, and 4. 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 Feb 6 00:38:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15DajE13555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:36:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g15DaZH13517 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:36:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.219] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16Y5d9-0005MO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:27:27 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:26:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:26:21 -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 From: "Brambledown" : > > Grattan Endicott writes: > > > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a > >master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow > >providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing > >so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players > >will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when > >they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is > >an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > When this was discussed on BLML recently, was the point not made that the > size of the trump is relevant? With spades trumps, a declarer holding SA > DAK might be assumed always to play SA first in case a trump is lingering. > OTOH holding S2 DAK this would be pointless. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) And wouldn't then the "natural" play be to first play the single trump he has left when he is convinced that even if there should still be a forgotten trump with one of the defenders his own trump is certainly the highest. I am still looking out for a plausible reason why first playing his last trump when he believes he has three high cards could be irrational. (Regardless of his level of competence). Sven I agree. Playing a small first might be unusual in real-time play - but it is not irrational. I am puzzled why we will allow the claimer to cash a 'master' trump to catch any forgotton lurkers, but we won't force him cash a small trump (which he thinks is a master trump) before he runs side winners. 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 Feb 6 01:40:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15EcD825407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:38:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15Ec3H25381 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:38:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11161 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:28:58 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:09:18 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c5fe78e.1684.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.172.184 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Snip ] > The question is what action you would take if the Irish authorities >deemed this to be illegal? Well if its illegal thats that ... roll back the score to the best possible for the opps etc. The hand I quoted with a crapy 5 count is extreme, but the initial thread refered to AKQJ xxx xxx xxx. The rule of 18 is one short here (10+7). IF the rule of 18 is engraved in stone (and it appears to be so in NZ) then this bid is illegal and you rule accordingly. I think most people to date replying to this thread would find it distasteful to have to rule against the above hand when the vast majority of us would open this hand in 3rd seat or even 1st/2nd. On this basis it would seem that the rule of 18 either needs to be chucked out or have exceptions (based on common sense such as the above example - this will undoubtedly increase the number of td calls and appeals). There is no right answer here - we either pick some spot to put up our illegal/legal fence or we start delving in and living with various shades of grey. It simply comes down to what people will tolerate and accept in the game. I do feel and it is a common sub thread in alot of the posts to date that the laws are going to have to start catering for different levels of play. The current set of laws cover the social bridge player to the the bridge pro. Apologises for stating the obvious but they aren't the same and shouldn't be judged under the same umbrella. I'd be quite happy with say club player flight b whatever - sound opener flight A, advanced etc - rule of 18 Experts+ - Anything goes Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 02:08:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15F7AO00958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:07:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15F71H00939 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:07:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g15EvxZ09928 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:57:59 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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: <200202051323.NAA10229@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin Barker wrote: > It's not really relevant, but it is not (explicitly) the case that > everything permitted at level 1 is permitted at higher levels. However I really don't think we should take the suggestion that Level 1 conventions can't be played in level 2/3/4 events seriously - do you? Actually I quite like the Level 1 references to old fashioned simple Acol under level 1 - "Partner I want to play in 1NT if you are balanced without game values or better" is just about as simple and old fashioned as one can get. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 02:11:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15F9ax01400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:09:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15F9QH01377 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:09:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA20538; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:59:49 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: "Steve Willner" , Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:40:09 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c5feec9.182a.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.172.184 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >"The truth is that bridge is a game requiring judgement and players >will differ in their assessment of what is an opening bid." > >My view is that players should be allowed reasonable freedom in exercising >this judgement and hence the boundaries of regulation should be a >significant distance from what is commonly accepted as an opening bid (even >a third seat opening) so that the players can exercise that judgement (or in >other words be allowed to play bridge). [Karel - The above paragraph sums up my view with one provisio. Let me diverge a second. I started bridge playing acol, strong 2's no transfers stone age stuff in North Dublin. I played this system for years. I have since moved on and have played various systems in lots of clubs and competitions. Every so often though I go back to my "founding" club and play with a lady who enjoys my bridge style, god bless her. They still play stone age acol. They pause, they ask lead directing questions, they know more about their partners hand by observing their partners eye dilation, etc. They know very little about the laws of bridge other than the section on revokes and maybe a bid out of turn. Getting back to the point - I wouldn't dream of playing say a forcing pass system or even precision in this club. I wouldn't open 1S with AKQJ xxx xxx xxx in 3rd position because it would be unfair and unsportsman like. These tactics would deprive THEM of "playing bridge". And yet these same people are highly competitive and attend the local congresses regularly. The laws of bridge as they stand deal with them as they would Zia or anyone else. How can this be so ?? Zia's definition of "playing bridge" is completely different to mine which is miles away from my bridge roots club's definition. So sure let bridge be played but lets try to judge our players by their bridge standard. Karel. -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 03:01:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15G0h911293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:00:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15G0SH11268 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:00:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g15FpQB00430; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:51:26 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:51:26 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g15FpQ320948; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:51:26 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:51:26 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 PAA04114; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:51:25 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA09446; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:51:24 GMT Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:51:24 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202051551.PAA09446@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim writes: > In-Reply-To: <200202051323.NAA10229@tempest.npl.co.uk> > Robin Barker wrote: > > > It's not really relevant, but it is not (explicitly) the case that > > everything permitted at level 1 is permitted at higher levels. > > However I really don't think we should take the suggestion that Level 1 > conventions can't be played in level 2/3/4 events seriously - do you? > No, but only because they are covered by various blanket licences at level 2. I wanted level 1 not to be (explitictly) included in level 2 for two reasons. (1) Level 1 can be defined to be whatever simple system the SO wish. It is conceivable that some local simple systems event may allow common "local variation", which may or may not be known elsewhere. (2) If level 1 is taken to be OB11.2.1, this still includes "any call that is part of old-fashioned simple Acol". What if some BL plays some obscure convention which is not level 2/3/4 but claims that it is part of old-fashioned simple Acol (as played in Yorkshire/Cornwall/ The Old Kent Road), how is a TD to gainsay him? This isn't so much a problem in level 1 events themselves as there are few BLs playing. 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 Feb 6 03:01:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15FxBZ11043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:59:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15Fx2H11011 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:59:03 +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 g15Fnvu06515; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:49:11 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020205104959-r01010800-0cf21cd8-0904-0109@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 2/4/02 at 9:56 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Perhaps for the same reason as the ACBL has regulations in the same > area? Which, no doubt, is "the five hundred pound canary sits where he wants." 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 Wed Feb 6 03:02:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15G0kL11298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:00:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15G0UH11272 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:00:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.167] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Y7o8-000CX1-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: <005801c1ae5c$eed75c00$a711e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <20020204144545-r01010800-99de8464-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <000b01c1ae15$be988f60$c533e150@dodona> <031501c1ae1d$821e6840$9e16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:51:01 -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: 05 February 2002 08:06 Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > > > +=+ If there is an agreement that bids in > > third/fourth positions have different values > > from those in first/second, is this disclosed > > on the CC? The meaning of a call is whatever > > it is stated to be on the CC. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > That last statement seems to me to be overly > simplistic. There are many calls that are not > precisely defined on most CC. Indeed a CC > often has too little space to provide details of > judgement or style not to mention variations in > seat. > +=+ Judgement applies in the case of each individual hand. But if repeated judgements lead to a situation where the meaning of the bid is significantly changed this change must be disclosed. If your opening 1M shows 5 cards, 10 plus HCP, but third-in-hand is known to your partner to be (say) 6 HCP upwards, 3 or more cards, opponents are entitled to find this stated on your CC. Players who think they can habitually do things when third in hand without announcing them are not playing the game fairly. Proper disclosure is the essence of fair play. ~ 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 Feb 6 03:19:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15GIAR14187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:18:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15GI1H14167 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:18:02 +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 g15G8wu29456; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:08:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:07:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-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 2/4/02 at 11:10 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > That's a practical problem, but basically just appeal. It is > extremely rare for a ruling to have no judgement involved. Of course, I > hear there are clubs with no appeal method at all [apart from Memphis]. > I think you have to apply some pressure inside the club if the TD is > continuously wrong, perhaps to get a local AC if nothing else. Okay. I can deal with that. :-) But... If there's judgement involved that's one thing. But a while back I was discussing Law 24, which gives declarer an option whether to consider a card exposed by a defender during the auction as a penalty card, with a local TD. She said "I'm not going to let that happen." To me, that's a blatantly illegal ruling. But it's not a matter of judgement, that I can see - it's an incorrect interpretation of the Law. I don't think an AC would help with 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 Wed Feb 6 03:28:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15GRAB15296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:27:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15GR1H15273 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:27:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g15GHwu10579; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:17:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:10:07 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <$QE1GoFPfyX8Ew2H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20020205111800-r01010800-267ac255-0904-0109@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 2/5/02 at 12:31 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > I would not like to tell you what that > publication is called now .... Mad Magazine? :-) 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 Wed Feb 6 03:38:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15GbFC16829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:37:15 +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-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 g15Gb6H16812 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:37:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.135.240] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16Y8Rv-000B5t-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:28:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:11:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: 05 February 2002 13:26 Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > I agree. Playing a small first might be unusual > in real-time play - but it is not irrational. > > I am puzzled why we will allow the claimer to > cash a 'master' trump to catch any forgotton lurkers, > but we won't force him cash a small trump > (which he thinks is a master trump) before he > runs side winners. > > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > +=+ The rationale was that if the unexpected loser might be in a side suit he would not cash his last trump whatever its size. It was not considered rational to use up the only trump he believes to be around when he might have forgotten a side suit loser. It was considered rational players will guard against the possibility of a mental aberration having occurred. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 04:21:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15HJop24142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 04:19:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15HJgH24109 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 04:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA12423 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA25646 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202051710.MAA25646@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > I am puzzled why we will allow the claimer to cash a 'master' trump > to catch any forgotton lurkers, Who says we allow claimer to cash a master trump? That seems contrary to L70C. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 06:09:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15J6vO14781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:06:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (selenium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15J6lH14756 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:06:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 02:55:50 +0800 Received: from mx15.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.115]) by selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:29:07 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx15.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g15HT6jJ008061 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:29:07 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15HJop24142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 04:19:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15HJgH24109 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 04:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA12423 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA25646 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202051710.MAA25646@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > I am puzzled why we will allow the claimer to cash a 'master' trump > to catch any forgotton lurkers, Who says we allow claimer to cash a master trump? That seems contrary to L70C. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 6 08:25:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15LOWq02154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:24:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15LOIH02150 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:24:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g15KbRA23482; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:37:27 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c1ae84$ed292fa0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:37:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Grattan Endicott" ..... (snip) > +=+ The rationale was that if the unexpected loser > might be in a side suit he would not cash his last > trump whatever its size. It was not considered > rational to use up the only trump he believes to > be around when he might have forgotten a side > suit loser. It was considered rational players > will guard against the possibility of a mental > aberration having occurred. +=+ This obviously settles it, the common footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71 no longer applies: quote: For the purpose of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. unquote If a player believes all his cards are high it may be careless (maybe even extremely careless) not to play them in a "safe" sequence (just in case he remembers wrong), but this is certainly not irrational. So now I am just awaiting a formal removal of this footnote, and I do wonder what will replace 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 Wed Feb 6 08:28:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15LSJn02166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:28:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.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 g15LSBH02162 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:28:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.206] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16YCzX-0002rE-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:19:03 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:17:59 -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 The Teneriffe precedent says something like: When cashing winners, the claimer is assumed to cash his side-suit winners before his last trump. When you (Grattan) wrote: It is my personal opinion that a player will play a master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I thought you were saying that claimer can cash a master trump to catch lurkers before cashing the side suits. On second reading, perhaps you are saying that claimer can only cash a master trump if he has more than one trump. But he may not cash his last trump - whether it be master or not. Is this a fair reading of your position? 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 Feb 6 08:54:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15LrsU02187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:53:54 +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 (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15LrfH02183 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:53:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g15LiP526966; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:44:25 +0100 Message-ID: <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:44:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or "inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow such guidelines? I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:17 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > The Teneriffe precedent says something like: > When cashing winners, the claimer is assumed to cash his side-suit winners before his last trump. > > When you (Grattan) wrote: > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a > master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow > providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing > so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players > will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when > they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is > an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I thought you were saying that claimer can cash a master trump to catch lurkers before cashing the side suits. > On second reading, perhaps you are saying that claimer can only cash a master trump if he has more than one trump. > But he may not cash his last trump - whether it be master or not. > > Is this a fair reading of your position? > > > 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 Feb 6 09:09:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15M98502207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:09:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15M90H02203 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:09:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g15Lxwu29690; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:59:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:56:16 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000b01c1ae15$be988f60$c533e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020205170000-r01010800-dedbf1ae-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 2/5/02 at 2:12 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > +=+ This is a misleading statement. [...] > Otherwise it is the Executive whose ratification gives authority to > the work of both committees. +=+ My mistake. Sorry about that. But it doesn't change the sense of what I said - that if a question hasn't been considered by an authority, then the authority's answer to that question can't be assumed. > +=+ If there is an agreement that bids in third/fourth positions > have different values from those in first/second, is this disclosed > on the CC? The meaning of a call is whatever it is stated to be on > the CC. ~ G ~ +=+ I would think the meaning of a call is whatever the partnership agreement says it is. What's on the CC is evidence, certainly, but I wouldn't call it conclusive - especially here in the ACBL, where a lot of people seem to have no idea how to fill one out - even if there were room. There is a check box for "usual minimum length" in 3rd or 4th seat, but there's no place with much room to write down a minimum *strength*. And since most people (at least, most of the ones *I* know :) seem to think a properly completed card is either (a) not required or (b) consists of boxes checked where available, and things written down where there's a space specifically alloted, well, I don't think I've *ever* seen an ACBL card that addresses the strength of 3rd or 4th seat openers. Including, I'm sorry to say, any of mine. :-) 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 Wed Feb 6 09:42:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15Mfkj02241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:41:46 +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-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 g15MfZH02233 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:41:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.13.79] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16YE8d-0000vZ-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:32:32 +0000 Message-ID: <003301c1ae95$5df54600$4f0de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200202051710.MAA25646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:04:48 -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: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:10 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > I am puzzled why we will allow the claimer to cash a > > 'master' trump to catch any forgotton lurkers, > > Who says we allow claimer to cash a master trump? > That seems contrary to L70C. > -- +=+ Bingo +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 09:42:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15MfiS02240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:41:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g15MfYH02231 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:41:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.13.79] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16YE8c-0000vZ-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:32:30 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:30:20 -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: "David Stevenson" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] > But a while back I was discussing Law 24, which gives > declarer an option whether to consider a card exposed > by a defender during the auction as a penalty card, > with a local TD. She said "I'm not going to let that > happen." To me, that's a blatantly illegal ruling. But > it's not a matter of judgement, that I can see - it's an > incorrect interpretation of the Law. I don't think an AC > would help with that. > +=+ After the TD has heard the appeal the player may take it to the appeal committee. If it considers the TD has got the law wrong the AC will invite the TD to review her ruling; if she maintains her view the AC then has the 81C9 power to refer the matter to the national authority. ~ 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 Feb 6 10:04:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g15N3nd02268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:03:50 +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 (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15N3eH02264 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:03:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g15Mrn730579; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: <012b01c1ae97$f9f719a0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:53:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" .....("rinse" away some of it) > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] > > > > But a while back I was discussing Law 24, which gives > > declarer an option whether to consider a card exposed > > by a defender during the auction as a penalty card, > > with a local TD. She said "I'm not going to let that > > happen." To me, that's a blatantly illegal ruling. But > > it's not a matter of judgement, that I can see - it's an > > incorrect interpretation of the Law. I don't think an AC > > would help with that. > > > +=+ After the TD has heard the appeal the player may > take it to the appeal committee. If it considers the TD > has got the law wrong the AC will invite the TD to > review her ruling; if she maintains her view the AC then > has the 81C9 power to refer the matter to the national > authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan: Are you sure this is correct? L81 deals with the duties and powers of the TD, not the AC? I find the laws 93B1, and thereafter 93C to be relevant (the latter clearly opens for a matter of Law to be appealed beyond the AC) Incidently, isn't there an inherent conflict between laws 93B1 and 93B3???: 93B1: His ruling (on Law) may be appealed to the committee 93B3: Except that the Committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law 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 Feb 6 12:47:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g161ksJ21053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:46:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.mgfairfax.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g161kiH21027 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome ([66.61.49.113]) by mail5.mgfairfax.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:37:35 -0500 Message-ID: <00ba01c1aeae$9fb275e0$71313d42@cox.rr.com> Reply-To: "John Kuchenbrod" From: "John Kuchenbrod" To: References: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> <20020204135100-r01010800-a6107176-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:35:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Ed Reppert writes > >On 2/4/02 at 12:02 PM, olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) > >wrote: > > > >> Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. > > > >Seems to me it's unethical to agree one down, when you know damn well the queen > >will fall under the king. > > If you are certain this will happen then you have no problem: the TD > will rule that way. > > The fact that some TDs will not, and some members of BLML will not, > suggest it is not so obvious. > > I don't think we are going to agree on anything here, except that > there is more than one view. You can argue that *every* declarer will > always cash the high trump *now*, and let him take all the tricks. You > can argue that *some* declarers would either play a small trump > "knowing" they had to lose a trick, or that *some* declarers might play > other suits, giving the player with a trump the chance to ruff. Both > arguments have some validity: both arguments are considered by some of > their proponents to be completely obvious! > > But I do not think it can possibly be unethical to accept a trick that > some TDs and ACs would grant you. > I normally lurk, but I had to comment on a hand I played this week at our luncheon bridge game at work--the timing is perfect: Dummy has 8 diamonds to the AJ, AK of clubs, two spades, one heart. Declarer has 3 diamonds to the K, no clubs, 5 spades to the A, QJTxx of hearts. I (the RHO) hold Qx of diamonds. LHO leads a club against 3NT. You know what happens: A of clubs, diamond to the K (LHO shows out), diamond to the J to preserve communication since declarer thought I had three diamonds! Thank goodness it wasn't a claim :-) Back to lurking, 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 Wed Feb 6 13:05:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1624mV24578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:04:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1624dH24555 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:04:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6ZS2; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:55:37 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205204533.03137250@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:55:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton 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 Hi David, "Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving which I remember from my youth ..." AFAIR the Revolving Discards I have encountered were a variation on Lavinthal where if diamonds were led: 1. a high heart would call for a spade, a low heart would call for a club (as in normal Lavinthal), but 2. a high spade would call for a club (the next "higher" revolving suit ... ... rather than calling for a heart: the higher of the two suits not led and not discarded as in normal Lavinthal) Walt Flory _________ At 10:40 PM 2/4/02 +0000, you wrote: >Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: > >DWS wrote: > > > >> It is not proper analysis: it is irrelevant analysis so as to support > >> a minority position. > > > >It is highly relevant analysis. What is the problem with saying "A > >minority of players believe 1444/1345 to be semi-balanced while the > >majority believes them to be unbalanced - both sides can make a reasonable > >case for their interpretation. In recognition of this the bridge > >authorities should give clarification when using the term semi-balanced.*" > > > >*Just as the EBU does in the orange book. Surely you can see that if such > >clarification wasn't given maybe 20-30% of players would interpret the > >phrase differently from the other 70-80%. How can that be good? > > I do not believe the number would be anything like that high - and >practically every term used in bridge has some number of people who mean >something else by it. We are dealing with normal bridge terms. > > >PS, Minority opinions aren't always wrong. > > No, but they tend to be very unhelpful when they are to use names to >define things differently. Such things as calling Lavinthal discards >Revolving which I remember from my youth, or calling a defence to1NT >Cansino when it is nothing like Cansino as occurred in an RGB thread of >a couple of months ago do not help. > > This is different from minority opinions from what is the best way to >bid, or rule: that is fine. We can disagree, but it does no harm. But >refusing to follow normal definitions does no good. > >-- >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 Wed Feb 6 18:35:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g167YLi11861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:34:21 +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-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 g167YBH11843 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:34:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.141.132] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YMNe-000Ii0-00; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 07:20:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020205170000-r01010800-dedbf1ae-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:15:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > On 2/5/02 at 2:12 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > +=+ This is a misleading statement. > > [...] > > > Otherwise it is the Executive whose ratification gives authority to > > the work of both committees. +=+ > > My mistake. Sorry about that. But it doesn't change the sense > of what I said - that if a question hasn't been considered by an > authority, then the authority's answer to that question can't be > assumed. > +=+ However, what is present in the Systems Policy has been approved by the highest authority. +=+ > > I don't think I've *ever* seen an ACBL card that addresses > the strength of 3rd or 4th seat openers. Including, I'm sorry > to say, any of mine. :-) > +=+ Oh, yes, players do make a general statement about their openers and neglect to disclose a distinction, if there is one in practice, for third-in-hand openers. That the majority may be guilty of this negligence is no justification of it, especially where it entails more than a mere shading of values. Also, a key requirement is that players shall not, at dealer's second call, allow for departures from announced methods that, third in hand, are characteristic of the partnership and undisclosed. ~ 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 Feb 6 18:40:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g167edo12643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:40:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g167eUH12614 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:40:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.189] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YMTl-000DJV-00; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 07:26:53 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c1aee0$a764e840$848d403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" , "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> <012b01c1ae97$f9f719a0$09cb049b@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 07:32:54 -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" ; "Ed Reppert" ; "David Stevenson" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > .....("rinse" away some of it) > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] > > > > > +=+ After the TD has heard the appeal the player may > > take it to the appeal committee. If it considers the TD > > has got the law wrong the AC will invite the TD to > > review her ruling; if she maintains her view the AC then > > has the 81C9 power to refer the matter to the national > > authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Grattan: Are you sure this is correct? L81 deals with the > duties and powers of the TD, not the AC? > +=+ See WBFLC minutes 1st Nov 2001, para. 6 An AC has all the powers of the Director except not to overrule him in a matter of discipline or law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 19:09:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16896M16278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1688uH16248 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:08:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.52.175]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g167xog18508 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:59:51 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C60E28A.3090107@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:00:10 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or > "inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow > such guidelines? > I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. > It is irrational because no-one plays like that. Of course that can't be proven, because all players (in that frame of mind) will claim. > Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > To: "'Grattan Endicott'" > Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:17 PM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > >>The Teneriffe precedent says something like: >>When cashing winners, the claimer is assumed to cash his side-suit winners >> > before his last trump. > >>When you (Grattan) wrote: >>It is my personal opinion that a player will play a >>master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow >>providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing >>so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players >>will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when >>they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is >>an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >>I thought you were saying that claimer can cash a master trump to catch >> > lurkers before cashing the side suits. > >>On second reading, perhaps you are saying that claimer can only cash a >> > master trump if he has more than one trump. > >>But he may not cash his last trump - whether it be master or not. >> >>Is this a fair reading of your position? >> >> >>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/ > > -- 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 Feb 6 19:32:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g168Vqv20685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:31:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g168VhH20660 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:31:44 +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 JAA13954; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:19:50 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id JAA02160; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:22:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206092110.00a82180@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:25:59 +0100 To: Walt Flory , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205204533.03137250@mail.fscv.net> 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 20:55 5/02/2002 -0500, Walt Flory wrote: >Hi David, > >"Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving which I remember from >my youth ..." > >AFAIR the Revolving Discards I have encountered were a variation on >Lavinthal where if diamonds were led: > 1. a high heart would call for a spade, a low heart would call for a > club (as in normal Lavinthal), but > 2. a high spade would call for a club (the next "higher" revolving > suit ... > ... rather than calling for a heart: the higher of the two > suits not led and not discarded as in normal Lavinthal) AG : as a mathematician, I offer you a very easy way to describe revolving discards : treat the order of suits as cyclic. S > H > D > C > S > H ... Take away the suit over which you discard. Then the three other suits are still in cyclic order, thus one of the remaining suits is just above the one you discard, the other is just below. Apply the lavinthal principle to this configuration : Discard high for the upper suit, low for the lower suit. Thus, if you discard on hearts, the remaining order is D>C>S>D. If you discard a spade, a high one asks for clubs, a low one for diamonds. If you discard a diamond, a high one asks for spades, a low one for clubs. If you discard a club, a high one asks for diamonds, a low one for spades. The inherent weakness of revolving discards is the same as for lavinthal : you can't ask for the suit over which you discard, which is very useful when partener is wondering whether to try for a trump promotion. 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 Feb 6 19:58:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g168w9h25851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:58:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g168vxH25819 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:58:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.52.28] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YNgg-00092y-00; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:44:18 +0000 Message-ID: <004001c1aeeb$78293a80$848d403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:48:47 -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: "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:17 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > The Teneriffe precedent says something like: > When cashing winners, the claimer is assumed to cash > his side-suit winners before his last trump. > > When you (Grattan) wrote: > It is my personal opinion that a player will play a > master trump perhaps to draw any forgotten minnow > providing that he does not exhaust his trumps in doing > so. Otherwise I do not believe that in practice players > will play out their trump(s) before the side suit(s) when > they believe all their cards are winners. I think there is > an instinctive retention of trumps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I thought you were saying that claimer can cash a master > trump to catch lurkers before cashing the side suits. > On second reading, perhaps you are saying that claimer > can only cash a master trump if he has more than one trump. > But he may not cash his last trump - whether it be master > or not. > > Is this a fair reading of your position? > > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > +=+ I have confused you by talking about the way I believe players will act when not claiming but playing the hand out. If there is a claim and they say nothing about an outstanding trump they will not be allowed to draw it. In the Tenerife case declarer had two trumps and opponent also had two, both smaller than declarer's higher and higher than his smaller one. Declarer believed his opponent had only one trump and said he would draw it; the issue was whether after that he should be required to play his other trump, have it taken by opponent and sundry side suit tricks cashed. The view of the committee was that it is *irrational* for declarer to play his last trump before the side suits since, when believing they have all the tricks, rational players will allow that they should retain trump control in case of accidents. It is all about judgement of what is 'irrational'; Sven thinks the action is merely 'inferior' but this was not the AC's opinion in the given circumstances. ~ 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 Feb 6 20:09:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1698Ke27855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:08:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16989H27826 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:08:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g168x0r04382; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c1aeec$8572e960$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C60E28A.3090107@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:59:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or > > "inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow > > such guidelines? > > I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. > > > > > It is irrational because no-one plays like that. > Of course that can't be proven, because all players (in that > frame of mind) will claim. > That cannot be proven simply because it just isn't true. Just try to remember the "reports" of astonishing mistakes made by even top players over the years and you will know. An example of irrational play is (spade is trump): Dummy holds 8S and a small heart Declarer holds 9S and AD, and is on the lead. Declarer has forgotten the last outstanding trump, a 5S which happens to be with LHO. To lose one trick here declarer has to play the AD first and _not_ overtrump if LHO uses his last trump. But to claim that it is irrational to play either the 9S or the AD first instead of in the opposite sequence when he believes both cards are high is really "irrational". BTW. It is not irrational (but of course very careless) to play the AD first, discard the small heart from dummy and get a surprise when RHO takes the trick with his 5S! Sven .....(snip the surplus) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 6 20:22:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g169M6M00625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:22:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g169LvH00598 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:21:57 +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 KAA24106; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:10:04 +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 KAA19957; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:12:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:16:13 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C60E28A.3090107@village.uunet.be> References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:00 6/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or >>"inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow >>such guidelines? >>I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. AG : let's use some logic here. A player cashes one more high trump whenever he suspects he might have forgotten one. When he doesn't, he doesn't. A player who claims "knows" there is no lurker. Thus, claiming is incompatible with cashing one more trump. Please dismember this argument if you can. Best ragards, 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 Feb 6 20:52:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g169pr306069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:51:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g169piH06045 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:51:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95960.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.216] (may be forged)) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g169gcu24547 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:42:38 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C60FAA1.4020109@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:42:57 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C60E28A.3090107@village.uunet.be> <001101c1aeec$8572e960$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, what are you trying to prove ? Sven Pran wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or >>>"inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow >>>such guidelines? >>>I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. >>> >>> >> >>It is irrational because no-one plays like that. >>Of course that can't be proven, because all players (in that >>frame of mind) will claim. >> >> > > That cannot be proven simply because it just isn't true. > Just try to remember the "reports" of astonishing mistakes > made by even top players over the years and you will know. > > An example of irrational play is (spade is trump): > Dummy holds 8S and a small heart > Declarer holds 9S and AD, and is on the lead. > > Declarer has forgotten the last outstanding trump, a 5S > which happens to be with LHO. > > To lose one trick here declarer has to play the AD first and > _not_ overtrump if LHO uses his last trump. But to claim that it > is irrational to play either the 9S or the AD first instead of in the > opposite sequence when he believes both cards are high is really > "irrational". > You are willing this declarer to play the AD first, aren't you? So that is conform the Tenerife decision. > BTW. It is not irrational (but of course very careless) to play > the AD first, discard the small heart from dummy and get a > surprise when RHO takes the trick with his 5S! > Yes indeed, this claim is quite standard : declarer loses a trick to RHO, but not to LHO. standard. The point is not this. The point that Tenerife solves is this one: Declarer has a (Sp) trump (correctly known to be the last one), AH, and JD, thought to be high. defender has QD and 2 clubs. Declarer can be deemed to play hearts first (2 tricks), diamonds first (2 tricks), but not spades first and diamonds second (1 trick). I believe that in such a case no player would play the trumps first. But this cannot be proven, because no player would actually play them out (since he believes them to be high all three). > Sven > > .....(snip the surplus) > > > > -- 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 Feb 6 21:03:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16A38T08262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:03:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16A2vH08231 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:02:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g169rlf12764; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:53:47 +0100 Message-ID: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:53:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >Sven Pran wrote: > > > >>And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or > >>"inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow > >>such guidelines? > >>I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. > > AG : let's use some logic here. A player cashes one more high trump > whenever he suspects he might have forgotten one. When he doesn't, he doesn't. > A player who claims "knows" there is no lurker. Thus, claiming is > incompatible with cashing one more trump. > Please dismember this argument if you can. Simple: If all my cards are high and there are no "surprises" so the sequence in which I play my cards is completely irrelevant; I shall have all remaining tricks regardless of the sequence I happen to choose, then there is no way to play the remaining cards that can be deemed "irrational". Artistic, yes. Careless, yes. But irrational? NO. And if the Director can point out one such play that will give opponents one or more of the remaining tricks (not neccessarily for a trump) because of something I have overlooked, it is still my opinion that he is bound by Laws 70C and/or 70D together with the footnote to do so. The fact that the applicable play is "careless", even grossly careless, or "inferior for the class of player involved" is explicitly stated as no reason to divert from this rule. In a separate post I gave an example of what it takes in my opinion (and in fact what we train TD candidates for in Norway) to rule "irrational" play. 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 Feb 6 21:35:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16AYfA13971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:34:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16AYVH13940 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:34:32 +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 LAA05531; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:24:49 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA08184; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:25:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:28:46 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:53 6/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > >>And why is it "irrational" rather than "careless" and/or > > >>"inferior for the class of player involved" not to follow > > >>such guidelines? > > >>I still think this decision (if there really is one) stinks. > > > > AG : let's use some logic here. A player cashes one more high trump > > whenever he suspects he might have forgotten one. When he doesn't, he >doesn't. > > A player who claims "knows" there is no lurker. Thus, claiming is > > incompatible with cashing one more trump. > > Please dismember this argument if you can. > >Simple: If all my cards are high and there are no "surprises" so the >sequence >in which I play my cards is completely irrelevant; I shall have all >remaining >tricks regardless of the sequence I happen to choose, then there is no way >to play the remaining cards that can be deemed "irrational". Artistic, yes. >Careless, yes. But irrational? NO. AG : I'm sorry, Sven, but I feel you failed to address the question. My question is : can you compel the claimer to follow a line of play *nobody* would *ever* follow when in his specific state of mind ? Claiming without explanation, and thinking of playing one more round of trumps, means you simultaneously think that there is no lurker and that there could be one. That would be irrational, wouldn't it ? (as Heaviside once put it, from there on you can mathematically prove that I'm the Pope) 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 Feb 6 21:45:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Aj7V15677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:45:08 +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 g16AiwH15647 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g16AZsg16394 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:35:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening 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: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Oh, yes, players do make a general statement > about their openers and neglect to disclose a distinction, > if there is one in practice, for third-in-hand openers. That > the majority may be guilty of this negligence is no > justification of it, especially where it entails more than > a mere shading of values. Not sure about this. Surely if something is a majority practice it's not a special partnership understanding (and opponents can reasonably be expected to understand its meaning). Obviously it's something for which an SO could mandate specific disclosure requirements but probably not a priority. I ask myself "would I expect a pick-up partner to have lower requirements for 3rd suit openers, would I expect him to cater to mine?". I think that the anwser is yes. Your underlying point is well made however - majority practice does not include opening eg KQJT,xxx,xxx,xxx with 1S and that should be disclosed. 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 Feb 7 00:30:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16DTR117993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:29:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16DTIH17974 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:29:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YRzk-0000Rz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:20:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:20:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <002301c1ae84$ed292fa0$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:37 PM 2/5/02, Sven wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ The rationale was that if the unexpected loser > > might be in a side suit he would not cash his last > > trump whatever its size. It was not considered > > rational to use up the only trump he believes to > > be around when he might have forgotten a side > > suit loser. It was considered rational players > > will guard against the possibility of a mental > > aberration having occurred. +=+ > >This obviously settles it, the common footnote to >Laws 69, 70 and 71 no longer applies: > >quote: >For the purpose of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" >includes play that would be careless or inferior for >the class of player involved, but not irrational. >unquote > >If a player believes all his cards are high it may be >careless (maybe even extremely careless) not to >play them in a "safe" sequence (just in case he >remembers wrong), but this is certainly not irrational. > >So now I am just awaiting a formal removal of this >footnote, and I do wonder what will replace it? I've been arguing in favor of SO-provided guidelines for adjudicating incomplete claims, so my initial inclination was to look on the Tenerife precedent favorably. But now I've been convinced that Sven (and others) are right; this is not an appropriate guideline. In a typical play situation, declarer, playing in hearts, holds 98/8/-/- in the three-card ending. He thinks that all the opponents' trumps are gone, and that his spades are high, but realizes he might be wrong. There are three ways he might be wrong: (a) high spade still out, (b) high trump still out, or (c) low trump still out. Clearly, the "right" order in which he should (presumably) cash his remaining (presumed) winners depends on which of these possibilities he believes to be most likely. Therefore if he doesn't choose to face this decision, but instead claims with the statement "all good", I don't see how we can suggest that either playing his spades first or playing his trump first is irrational -- had he played on, he might have chosen to do either, and, whichever way he chose, he might have been right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 00:50:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16DnnW21726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:49:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g16DndH21694 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:49:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.253] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YSJM-0006La-00; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01c1af13$cdddf740$fd32e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:01:19 -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: Cc: Sent: 06 February 2002 10:35 Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > In-Reply-To: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Oh, yes, players do make a general statement > > about their openers and neglect to disclose a distinction, > > if there is one in practice, for third-in-hand openers. That > > the majority may be guilty of this negligence is no > > justification of it, especially where it entails more than > > a mere shading of values. > > Not sure about this. Surely if something is a majority > practice it's not a special partnership understanding > (and opponents can reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning). Obviously it's something for > which an SO could mandate specific disclosure > requirements but probably not a priority. > +=+ I think we have some measure of agreement. Definition is lacking as to where the line is to be drawn if the regulating authority does not specify, and lacking definition it will be up to ACs to set standards case by case. But I can agree that it is common to shade strength opposite a passed partner - whose responses are nonetheless subject to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: for example he is not allowed to pass instead of doubling a 1NT overcall, following P - P - 1S - 1NT, with a hand that would double 1S - 1NT - ? (say 10 HCP). The point is made in a WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000. ~ 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 Feb 7 00:53:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16DrEX22337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:53:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16Dr6H22324 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YSMm-0003T3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:44:04 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206083654.00af62b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:44:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: <20020205170000-r01010800-dedbf1ae-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <000b01c1ae15$be988f60$c533e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 2/5/02, Ed wrote: >I would think the meaning of a call is whatever the partnership >agreement says >it is. What's on the CC is evidence, certainly, but I wouldn't call it >conclusive - especially here in the ACBL, where a lot of people seem >to have no >idea how to fill one out - even if there were room. There is a check >box for >"usual minimum length" in 3rd or 4th seat, but there's no place with >much room >to write down a minimum *strength*. And since most people (at least, >most of the >ones *I* know :) seem to think a properly completed card is either (a) not >required or (b) consists of boxes checked where available, and things >written >down where there's a space specifically alloted, well, I don't think >I've *ever* >seen an ACBL card that addresses the strength of 3rd or 4th seat openers. >Including, I'm sorry to say, any of mine. :-) FWIW, I have. The ACBL convention card does have a checkbox for "very light openings", and, around here, it's not all that rare (although, sadly, not all that common either among pairs that do bid that way) to see that box checked with an (admittedly necessarily tiny) handwritten "3rd" or "3rd/4th" next to it. BTW, knowing that my views have been warped by decades of playing EHAA, I didn't respond to the question of AKQJ/xxx/xxx/xxx in 3rd seat, but am now prepared to come out with it: I would never consider opening 1S on that hand -- but it looks like a perfectly reasonable 2S opener to me. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 01:04:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16E4gq24539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:04:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.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 g16E4XH24520 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:04:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-009.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.201] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16YSXl-000FlV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:55:26 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:54:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1AF15.C8218AE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:54:21 -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 Some of us think that it is not irrational to play the last trump before running a side suit. It might be careless, inferior, unusual, confident etc. but not irrational. ok so the Teneriffe decision has surprised some of us by giving an exception, namely that playing the last trump before the side suit is irrational. ok we can live with it. We welcome clarifications like this. However does the Teneriffe mindset help us in any way to clear up a previous thread where declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having forgotton that the 9 was outstanding? Does declarer get 3 tricks (which he probably would do if he played them out) or does he lose a trick to the defender's trump. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 01:06:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16E5ro24769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:05:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16E5jH24748 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:05:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YSZ0-0005Nn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:56:42 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206084741.00af32a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:57:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <003301c1ae95$5df54600$4f0de150@dodona> References: <200202051710.MAA25646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:04 PM 2/5/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" > > > Who says we allow claimer to cash a master trump? > > That seems contrary to L70C. > >+=+ Bingo +=+ A bit simplistic IMO. That seems contrary to L70C1-2, but L70C3 provides for exceptions, and refers us to the dreaded footnote. The issue at hand is how to apply L70C in toto, i.e. what constitutes an exception to L70C1-2 based on L70C3. Anticipating David Burn's position, I suggest that one way the lawmakers could eliminate any possible problem in this area would be to do away with L70C3 altogether (that doesn't mean I favor doing so, but at the moment I don't oppose it either). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 01:18:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16EHrr27002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:17:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16EHhH26985 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:17:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g16E8dP25590 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:08:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening 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: <002a01c1af13$cdddf740$fd32e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > But I can agree that it is > common to shade strength opposite a passed > partner - whose responses are nonetheless subject > to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: for example > he is not allowed to pass instead of doubling a 1NT > overcall, following P - P - 1S - 1NT, with a hand that > would double 1S - 1NT - ? (say 10 HCP). The point > is made in a WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000. I'm not sure I understand this. Supposing we determine that eg. KQJTx,x,QJxx,xxx is sufficiently common as a 3rd in hand 1S opener that no special disclosure is required then there is nothing to scrutinise in the responses. Personally I would only be scrutinising the responses if I determined that the opener was sufficiently non-standard to merit disclosure *and* I was seeking to decide between undisclosed PU and a non-PU based departure from agreements by opener. Of course passing with a ten count is generally bad bridge in this situation, putting pard (who often does have 12-13) under a lot of pressure - I'd rather not have regulations which discourage my opponents from playing bad 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 Thu Feb 7 01:25:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16EKrw27348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:20:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16EKiH27319 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:20:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YSnW-0000Bh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:11:42 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206090253.00af5410@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:12:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 In-Reply-To: <012b01c1ae97$f9f719a0$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:53 PM 2/5/02, Sven wrote: >Incidently, isn't there an inherent conflict between laws 93B1 >and 93B3???: >93B1: His ruling (on Law) may be appealed to the committee >93B3: Except that the Committee may not overrule the Director >on a point of law The apparent conflict is resolved by the last sentence of L93B3. The AC may not "overrule" the TD per se, but may "recommend... that he change his ruling" as the result of an appeal. In real life, I don't think I've ever seen a TD turn down such a recommendation from an AC. There was one occasion on which I was prepared to so myself, when a player wanted to appeal a half-board disciplinary penalty I had given him for disrupting the game (under L91A, which explicitly states that "the Director's decision... is final"), but the AC (correctly) refused to hear the appeal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 01:26:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16ENel27812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:23:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.233]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16ENUH27789 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:23:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta5.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.122) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr; 6 Feb 2002 15:14:17 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.79.102) by mel-rta5.wanadoo.fr; 6 Feb 2002 15:14:05 +0100 Message-ID: <00a201c1af18$94fbf260$664ff9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: [BLML] Senior concession Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:14:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ed Reppert writes > >On 2/4/02 at 12:02 PM, olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) > >wrote: > > > >> Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. > > > >Seems to me it's unethical to agree one down, when you know damn well the queen > >will fall under the king. > > If you are certain this will happen then you have no problem: the TD > will rule that way. > > The fact that some TDs will not, and some members of BLML will not, > suggest it is not so obvious. > > I don't think we are going to agree on anything here, except that > there is more than one view. You can argue that *every* declarer will > always cash the high trump *now*, and let him take all the tricks. You > can argue that *some* declarers would either play a small trump > "knowing" they had to lose a trick, or that *some* declarers might play > other suits, giving the player with a trump the chance to ruff. Both > arguments have some validity: both arguments are considered by some of > their proponents to be completely obvious! > > But I do not think it can possibly be unethical to accept a trick that > some TDs and ACs would grant you. For me, a claim is just equivalent to a concession : you play three tricks and then concede one so you clain nine. QED. What is a rational play, and an irrational? difficult to say, but i really think that every bridge player, holding a ten card suit with AK missing the Q and discovering she is above AK if requested to play will always cash the second honor before playing randomly the sides winners. Just to avoid been ruffed then stuck in dmmy and be later uppercuted. So not_to_play_the_second_honor is irrational for me. And when the Q falls down, it's ok ... Olivier. This one is the same family as "Basic claim principle", don't you think? > > -- > 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 Thu Feb 7 01:57:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Epl602673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:51:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16EpcH02648 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:51:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YTHP-0006jx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:42:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206092827.00af0c00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:43:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <004001c1aeeb$78293a80$848d403e@dodona> References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:48 AM 2/6/02, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I have confused you by talking about the way I believe >players will act when not claiming but playing the hand out. >If there is a claim and they say nothing about an outstanding >trump they will not be allowed to draw it. In the Tenerife >case declarer had two trumps and opponent also had two, >both smaller than declarer's higher and higher than his >smaller one. Declarer believed his opponent had only one >trump and said he would draw it; the issue was whether after >that he should be required to play his other trump, have it >taken by opponent and sundry side suit tricks cashed. >The view of the committee was that it is *irrational* for >declarer to play his last trump before the side suits since, >when believing they have all the tricks, rational players will >allow that they should retain trump control in case of >accidents. It is all about judgement of what is 'irrational'; >Sven thinks the action is merely 'inferior' but this was not >the AC's opinion in the given circumstances. ~ G ~ +=+ Grattan's last sentence is the heart of the problem, which brings us full circle back to the "class of player" debate. If we were to interpret the word "irrational" in TFLB in a way that conforms to the normal "dictionary" meaning of the word and stopped muddying the waters by worrying about the "class of player involved" -- in other words, if we finally stopped pretending that weaker bridge players are necessarily less rational than stronger ones -- we would quickly come 90%+ of the way towards establishing a consensual understanding of "what is 'irrational'" (i.e. what would be irrational for anybody, like cashing broken suits from the bottom up), and 90%+ of our rulings in these situations would no longer be "all about judgement[s] of what is 'irrational'" that differ from one committee to the next. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 02:10:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16FA2006252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:10:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16F9mH06211 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:09:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YTYz-0002mJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:00:45 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:01:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@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 05:28 AM 2/6/02, Alain wrote: >AG : I'm sorry, Sven, but I feel you failed to address the >question. My question is : can you compel the claimer to follow a >line of play *nobody* would *ever* follow when in his specific state >of mind ? Claiming without explanation, and thinking of playing one >more round of trumps, means you simultaneously think that there is no >lurker and that there could be one. That would be irrational, wouldn't >it ? (as Heaviside once put it, from there on you can mathematically >prove that I'm the Pope) Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I think that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as follows: (1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. (2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. (3) But I could be wrong. Plus EITHER: (4a) If I am wrong, I think the likelihood of a trump lurker is greater than the likelihood of an outstanding side-suit high card. OR: (4b) If I am wrong, I think the likelihood of an outstanding side-suit high card is greater than the likelihood of a trump lurker. To me, neither of these two lines of reasoning sounds the least bit irrational. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 02:16:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16FGN507394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:16:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16FGDH07352 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:16:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95960.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.216] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g16F6k502460 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:06:46 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:07:04 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> 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: > > I've been arguing in favor of SO-provided guidelines for adjudicating > incomplete claims, so my initial inclination was to look on the Tenerife > precedent favorably. But now I've been convinced that Sven (and others) > are right; this is not an appropriate guideline. > I wonder why not : > In a typical play situation, declarer, playing in hearts, holds 98/8/-/- > in the three-card ending. He thinks that all the opponents' trumps are > gone, and that his spades are high, but realizes he might be wrong. > There are three ways he might be wrong: (a) high spade still out, (b) > high trump still out, or (c) low trump still out. Clearly, the "right" > order in which he should (presumably) cash his remaining (presumed) > winners depends on which of these possibilities he believes to be most > likely. > > Therefore if he doesn't choose to face this decision, but instead claims > with the statement "all good", I don't see how we can suggest that > either playing his spades first or playing his trump first is irrational > -- had he played on, he might have chosen to do either, and, whichever > way he chose, he might have been right. > Good, except for one thing - your declarer is NOT in the same position as the Tenerife one. The Tenerife declarer was in the opinion that all were high, and he claimed accordingly. Your claimer is not - oh, he might try and fool us that he was, but that is not easy - most players are not oscar-winning actors. IMO, no player, thinking everything is high, will ever play trumps first. That is what the Tenerife ruling says. > -- 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 Feb 7 02:18:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16FIX207806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:18:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16FIOH07781 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:18:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95960.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.216] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g16F94503631 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:09:04 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C614723.4090800@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:09:23 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AF15.C8218AE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Some of us think that it is not irrational to play the last trump before running a side suit. > It might be careless, inferior, unusual, confident etc. but not irrational. > > ok so the Teneriffe decision has surprised some of us by giving an exception, > namely that playing the last trump before the side suit is irrational. ok we can live with it. > We welcome clarifications like this. > You're welcome. > > However does the Teneriffe mindset help us in any way to clear up a previous thread where > declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having forgotton that the 9 was outstanding? > Does declarer get 3 tricks (which he probably would do if he played them out) or > does he lose a trick to the defender's trump. > The old remaining problem. I don't think they need be trumps. A player has J72 of a suit he thinks are high. Does he lose to a 9 that he had forgotten ? IMO he does not. But that too will need an AC decision before being acceptable to a majority of players. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 7 02:55:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16FtSd14286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16FtGH14248 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:55:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g16Fk7s31309; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:46:07 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c1af25$64993ee0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206090253.00af5410@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:46:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks Eric! So much for me failing to notice that L93B3 continued on the next page in my printout. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 > At 05:53 PM 2/5/02, Sven wrote: > > >Incidently, isn't there an inherent conflict between laws 93B1 > >and 93B3???: > >93B1: His ruling (on Law) may be appealed to the committee > >93B3: Except that the Committee may not overrule the Director > >on a point of law > > The apparent conflict is resolved by the last sentence of L93B3. The > AC may not "overrule" the TD per se, but may "recommend... that he > change his ruling" as the result of an appeal. In real life, I don't > think I've ever seen a TD turn down such a recommendation from an AC. > > There was one occasion on which I was prepared to so myself, when a > player wanted to appeal a half-board disciplinary penalty I had given > him for disrupting the game (under L91A, which explicitly states that > "the Director's decision... is final"), but the AC (correctly) refused > to hear the appeal. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 7 02:57:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Fv6H14573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:57:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16FuuH14535 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:56:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA14876; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:45:02 +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 QAA11117; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:47:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206164828.00a64150@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:51:11 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206090253.00af5410@pop.starpower.net> References: <012b01c1ae97$f9f719a0$09cb049b@netop7210> <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003201c1ae95$5ce8b800$4f0de150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:12 6/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:53 PM 2/5/02, Sven wrote: > >>Incidently, isn't there an inherent conflict between laws 93B1 >>and 93B3???: >>93B1: His ruling (on Law) may be appealed to the committee >>93B3: Except that the Committee may not overrule the Director >>on a point of law > >The apparent conflict is resolved by the last sentence of L93B3. The AC >may not "overrule" the TD per se, but may "recommend... that he change his >ruling" as the result of an appeal. In real life, I don't think I've ever >seen a TD turn down such a recommendation from an AC. AG : as a matter of fact, I once did. I had seen what had happened at the table, they had not. The offenders did defend themselves better in front of the AC than the non-offenders (perhaps because they had a long experience of having to ?), and convinced the AC that that particular moon was made of green cheese. I saw no reason to believe it. >There was one occasion on which I was prepared to so myself, when a player >wanted to appeal a half-board disciplinary penalty I had given him for >disrupting the game (under L91A, which explicitly states that "the >Director's decision... is final"), but the AC (correctly) refused to hear >the appeal. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >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 Feb 7 02:58:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Fvu314739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:57:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16FvlH14708 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:57:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP21.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.21]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA22674; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:48:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:48:13 -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) 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 Davis wrote: That's a practical problem, but basically just appeal. It is extremely rare for a ruling to have no judgement involved. Of course, I hear there are clubs with no appeal method at all [apart from Memphis]. I think you have to apply some pressure inside the club if the TD is continuously wrong, perhaps to get a local AC if nothing else. ____________________________________________________________________ Or search for an other club.... 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 Feb 7 03:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16G3UD15571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:03:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16G3JH15545 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:03:19 +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 QAA16286; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:51:26 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA17683; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:54:16 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206165454.00a63c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:57:35 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:01 6/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:28 AM 2/6/02, Alain wrote: > >>AG : I'm sorry, Sven, but I feel you failed to address the question. My >>question is : can you compel the claimer to follow a line of play >>*nobody* would *ever* follow when in his specific state of mind >>? Claiming without explanation, and thinking of playing one more round >>of trumps, means you simultaneously think that there is no lurker and >>that there could be one. That would be irrational, wouldn't it ? (as >>Heaviside once put it, from there on you can mathematically prove that >>I'm the Pope) > >Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I think >that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? > >A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as follows: > >(1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. > >(2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. > >(3) But I could be wrong. (3A) but you wouldn't claim in that case ... Claiming is essentially pretending you can't be wrong in (1) and (2). If you have the faintest shadow of a doubt, you don't claim. Or do you ?:) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 03:36:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16GZhZ20630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:35:43 +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 g16GZYH20611 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:35:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA03269 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06178 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:26:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:26:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202061626.LAA06178@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But now I've been convinced that Sven > (and others) are right; this is not an appropriate guideline. Don't give up so quickly, Eric! It certainly isn't obvious that the Tenerife guideline ("trumps last") is _demanded_ by the claim laws, but neither is it obviously in conflict with them. > In a typical play situation, declarer, playing in hearts, holds > 98/8/-/- in the three-card ending. He thinks that all the opponents' > trumps are gone, and that his spades are high, but realizes he might be > wrong. There are three ways he might be wrong: (a) high spade still > out, (b) high trump still out, or (c) low trump still out. Exactly the right sort of question. Let us assume declarer claims with no statement or "all high" or the equivalent. There are two reasonable approaches we could take: 1. The Burn approach: give the worst possible result. 2. The Tenerife approach: one trick to defense in all three cases. Either way, _applied consistently_, is better than randomly letting AC's "judge" what they think is "equitable." I hope most of us can agree on that, although I don't expect unanimity. My personal preference is strongly in favor of 2. We don't want to punish claims, even mistaken ones; we just want to restore equity. > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having forgotton that the 9 > was outstanding? In the ACBL, at least, there is a guideline that suits are played "top down" unless there is an obvious alternative (e.g., a losing finesse). I think that's a good guideline, but again any guideline is better than none. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 03:43:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16GhTO22024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:43:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16GhKH22006 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:43:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YV1V-0001Ev-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:34:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206112515.00af38f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:34:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206165454.00a63c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 2/6/02, Alain wrote: >At 10:01 6/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I >>think that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? >> >>A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as >>follows: >> >>(1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. >> >>(2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. >> >>(3) But I could be wrong. > >(3A) but you wouldn't claim in that case ... Claiming is essentially >pretending you can't be wrong in (1) and (2). If you have the faintest >shadow of a doubt, you don't claim. Or do you ?:) Not "pretending", merely "failing to realize". Surely, a player whose thought processes encompass (1) and (2), but who is wrong (having forgotten an outstanding card), and then claims before getting to (3), has done something which is "careless... but not irrational". Not that it matters. A particular play by a particular player in a particular situation is either rational or irrational. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about what he would actually do on a day when he's being careful, considering the possbility that he might be wrong about the outstanding cards, and playing the hand out, or about what a committee would decide on a day when he has carelessly claimed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 04:01:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16H1TY24829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 04:01:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16H1JH24798 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 04:01:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA04937 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:52:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06228 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:52:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:52:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202061652.LAA06228@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I think we have some measure of agreement. > Definition is lacking as to where the line is to be > drawn if the regulating authority does not specify, Now that I look closely at the ACBL convention card, I find a check box at the top labelled "Very Light 3rd hand." So the SO here demands at least that degree of disclosure. I haven't seen any guidelines about what constitutes "very light." For the more common distinction between pairs who shade hardly at all (e.g. those who play Precision with light openings in all seats) and others who shade a "normal" 2-3 points, I don't see any obvious way to disclose other than in response to a question. There is also no invitation, and very little space, to disclose weak two requirements, which often vary drastically by seat and/or vulnerability. > whose responses are nonetheless subject > to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: We can expect the pair to argue that they have disclosed "in accordance with the regulations" of the SO (L40B). Grattan and I have been around this track before, but it's worth pointing out that the principles -- whatever you think they are or should be -- apply to perfectly ordinary auctions and agreements, not only to those evil psychic bids. (I hope and expect that we agree on that much, anyway.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 04:59:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16HwsQ05538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 04:58:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu ([139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16HwSH05460 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 04:58:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16Hn1l26005; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:49:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:50:20 -0600 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200202061626.LAA06178@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM 2/6/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > But now I've been convinced that Sven > > (and others) are right; this is not an appropriate guideline. > >Don't give up so quickly, Eric! > >It certainly isn't obvious that the Tenerife guideline ("trumps last") >is _demanded_ by the claim laws, but neither is it obviously in >conflict with them. Of course it is--the claim laws tell the TD to enforce equity, and sometimes the Tenerife guideline will produce inequitable results. > > In a typical play situation, declarer, playing in hearts, holds > > 98/8/-/- in the three-card ending. He thinks that all the opponents' > > trumps are gone, and that his spades are high, but realizes he might be > > wrong. There are three ways he might be wrong: (a) high spade still > > out, (b) high trump still out, or (c) low trump still out. > >Exactly the right sort of question. Let us assume declarer claims with >no statement or "all high" or the equivalent. > >There are two reasonable approaches we could take: >1. The Burn approach: give the worst possible result. >2. The Tenerife approach: one trick to defense in all three cases. > >Either way, _applied consistently_, is better than randomly letting >AC's "judge" what they think is "equitable." I hope most of us can >agree on that, although I don't expect unanimity. No, I don't agree. But you didn't expect me to. :) [Of course I don't really want them to do it randomly, either.] >My personal preference is strongly in favor of 2. We don't want to >punish claims, even mistaken ones; we just want to restore equity. Since we have heard about the alleged dictionary definition of "irrational" [which I still cannot find in my dictionary], then please let us hear what definition of "equity" this satisfies better than the Burn rule. The Burn school holds that "equity", "justice", "fairness" and all such terms are defined by the Laws of the game, and hence the Laws of the game, whatever they may be, are ipso facto "fair, equitable, and just". [Or, perhaps, they are fair, equitable and just if capable of being applied consistently.] Ergo, he will argue that giving the worst result possible is exactly as equitable as your method. I, OTOH, being a Natural Law theorist about Bridge Laws as much as I am about real laws, think that in the context of claims "equitable" means something like "producing the result that would have been produced had the hand been played out". On that definition, either Burns or Tenerife will sometimes produce equitable results, and sometimes will prevent a TD from producing equitable results. Please explain what definition of "equity" makes your approach more equitable than either Burn's. [I know why you think it is more equitable than mine--since TDs are fallible, they will sometimes produce different rulings on similar cases on my system.] > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having forgotton that the 9 > > was outstanding? > >In the ACBL, at least, there is a guideline that suits are played "top >down" unless there is an obvious alternative (e.g., a losing finesse). >I think that's a good guideline, but again any guideline is better than >none. I think it's good to give TDs quidelines to explain what is meant by words like "irrational", but I don't think it is good to give them guidelines like "in situation x, always require declarer to do y". 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 Feb 7 05:05:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16I5F206785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu ([139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16I4vH06734 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:04:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16Hsrl28713; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:54:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115050.00a32020@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:56:14 -0600 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206165454.00a63c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@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 04:57 PM 2/6/02 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:01 6/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I >>think that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? >> >>A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as follows: >> >>(1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. >> >>(2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. >> >>(3) But I could be wrong. > >(3A) but you wouldn't claim in that case ... Claiming is essentially >pretending you can't be wrong in (1) and (2). If you have the faintest >shadow of a doubt, you don't claim. Or do you ?:) I do, yes. If I think there is, say, a 99% chance that I have all the remaining tricks, I will claim. Since I am hardly ever in a position to say "I know with absolute certainty that it is impossible for opponents to take a trick", I would never be able to claim at all if I required no doubt at all before claiming--and neither would anyone else, if they're honest. ["You mean you've never miscounted trumps in your life?"] I think the game is better if people claim when they think they have all the rest of the tricks [even if once in a 100 times they're wrong] than if they play the hand out [wasting everyone's time 99 times our of a hundred]. So, for me at least, the fact that I have claimed in no way implies that had I played the hand out I would have done so randomly, or even 'randomly except for not crashing honors'. This is part of our difference about claim laws, perhaps. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 05:11:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16IBkP07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:11:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16IBbH07973 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:11:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA15601 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:01:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge" Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:08:39 -0800 Message-ID: <00f701c1af52$734279c0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >For the more common distinction between pairs who shade hardly at all >(e.g. those who play Precision with light openings in all seats) and >others who shade a "normal" 2-3 points, I don't see any obvious way to >disclose other than in response to a question. >There is also no invitation, and very little space, to disclose weak >two requirements, which often vary drastically by seat and/or >vulnerability. I've found it easiest to simply fill out two convention cards. The first documents agreements in first/second seat. The second describes agreements in 3rd/4th seat. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 05:30:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16IUNL11255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:30:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu ([139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16IUAH11232 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:30:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16IKPl09853; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:20:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:21:43 -0600 To: "Sven Pran" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM 2/6/02 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >And if the Director can point out one such play that will give opponents one >or more of the remaining tricks (not neccessarily for a trump) because of >something I have overlooked, it is still my opinion that he is bound by Laws >70C and/or 70D together with the footnote to do so. The fact that the >applicable play is "careless", even grossly careless, or "inferior for the The footnote does not say this. It does not say that "grossly careless" is the same as "careless". I have argued that the word "irrational", as actually used in English and as defined in some dictionaries, often [maybe even usually] includes "grossly careless". >class >of player involved" is explicitly stated as no reason to divert from this >rule. > >In a separate post I gave an example of what it takes in my opinion (and in >fact what we train TD candidates for in Norway) to rule "irrational" play. Suppose I play the ace of diamonds, it is trumped on my left, and I discard from dummy instead of overtrumping. Please explain by what definition of "irrational" and "careless" this play is irrational. Isn't this just really, really, grossly careless? If you use the standard "what players do", then you must admit that players _do_, occasionally, play like this. So if "irrational" means "something players never do" then this play isn't irrational. If "irrational" means "insane", I am sure we would never take this as proof of insanity, so the play isn't irrational. If "irrational" means "something that will never gain and might lose", then playing the ace of diamonds and discarding [in a two-card ending with a trump in dummy and one in your hand] can never gain and will sometimes lose, so it is irrational to do it even if the trump's on your right and not on your left. >Sven Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 05:47:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16IkmC13677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:46:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (al21.minfod.com [207.227.70.21] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16IkcH13650 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:46:40 +1100 (EST) Received: by EXCH01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1LKWMMZN>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:40:04 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21B9@EXCH01> From: John Nichols To: "'Bridge Laws '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:40:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: 2/6/02 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > >... Snip ... > >IMO, no player, thinking everything is high, will ever play trumps >first. > >That is what the Tenerife ruling says. You apparently haven't been at my Sunday night game--Now if you want to introduce "class of player" into the definition of "irrational" . . . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 06:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16JEln19060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:14:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16JEcH19031 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:14:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-10-152.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.10.152] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16YXNq-0004G5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:05:31 +0000 Message-ID: <010701c1af41$02ee6f00$3f1c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:03:47 -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: > The Burn school holds that "equity", > "justice", "fairness" and all such terms are defined by the Laws > of the game, and hence the Laws of the game, whatever they may > be, are ipso facto "fair, equitable, and just". Not quite. The Burn school holds that concepts such as "equity", "justice" and "fairness" have no place in the Laws of a game, because they make the game impossible to administer. > Ergo, he will argue that giving the worst result possible is > exactly as equitable as your method. I make no such assertion. I assert merely that giving the worst result possible is a procedure that will ensure that every claimer is treated in exactly the same way as every other claimer, and would be treated in this way by any official regardless of that official's competence. I consider this objective a highly desirable one; I also consider that arguments about the meanings of English words that have been used out of context in the first place are nothing but an impediment to achieving this desirable objective. > I, OTOH, being a Natural Law theorist about Bridge Laws > as much as I am about real laws, think that in the context of > claims "equitable" means something like "producing the result > that would have been produced had the hand been played out". If you want the result you would have got if you played the hand out, then play it out. If instead you make some foolish claim, you have ceased to play the hand, and should not expect what would have been yours had you continued to do so. I would mention, in order to illustrate the absurdities to which we are led in the present state of affairs, this anomaly. A declarer leads towards dummy's AQ and, without observing that LHO has played the king, calls for the queen. That queen is played, and the trick is lost. Similarly, a declarer leads a card and, without observing that LHO has ruffed, discards from dummy instead of overruffing. That trick is also lost. But a declarer who claims, having forgotten the existence of an outstanding trump, is deemed to have been going to notice LHO's ruff in time to overruff - not to do so has been considered "irrational". This is one of a number of cases in which a claimer is given not the result he might have got had he played the hand out, but a better result. Now, this is so wholly ridiculous as actually to deserve the epithet "irrational". And yet, it is the way the Laws of bridge are applied by real live people with two legs each. It would be tragic, if it weren't funny. 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 Feb 7 06:19:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16JJLC19747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:19:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16JJDH19723 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:19:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YXSM-0000Lf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:10:10 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206134126.00af4ad0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:10:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202061626.LAA06178@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM 2/6/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > But now I've been convinced that Sven > > (and others) are right; this is not an appropriate guideline. > >Don't give up so quickly, Eric! > >It certainly isn't obvious that the Tenerife guideline ("trumps last") >is _demanded_ by the claim laws, but neither is it obviously in >conflict with them. > > > In a typical play situation, declarer, playing in hearts, holds > > 98/8/-/- in the three-card ending. He thinks that all the opponents' > > trumps are gone, and that his spades are high, but realizes he > might be > > wrong. There are three ways he might be wrong: (a) high spade still > > out, (b) high trump still out, or (c) low trump still out. > >Exactly the right sort of question. Let us assume declarer claims with >no statement or "all high" or the equivalent. > >There are two reasonable approaches we could take: >1. The Burn approach: give the worst possible result. >2. The Tenerife approach: one trick to defense in all three cases. I believe that the correct general approach is to "give the worst possible result out of the set of results that might have been obtained without playing irrationally", which is neither of the above, but is, IMO, also reasonable. >Either way, _applied consistently_, is better than randomly letting >AC's "judge" what they think is "equitable." I hope most of us can >agree on that, although I don't expect unanimity. My argument is that in the example position, there are various layouts in which either playing spades first or playing trumps first could lead to a better result; someone playing the hand out would have to judge which play to take. Since either play could work out better than the other, i.e. either decision could turn out to be the winning one (albeit it's unlikely to matter -- a declarer who thinks is hand is high is *usually* right), neither can be considered irrational. The Tenerife decision says that one such judgment is rational and the other is irrational. I don't see how either is irrational. Calling trumps first "irrational" makes no more sense than calling spades first "irrational", and I would object to the decision just as strongly had they gone the opposite way. Declarer should be presumed to make whichever decision gives him the worst of it, depending on the cards still held by his opponents. Neither my position nor the Tenerife precedent leaves any room for ACs to "'judge' what they think is 'equitable'"; either leads to a mechanical ruling, albeit in some cases they will produce different ones. >My personal preference is strongly in favor of 2. We don't want to >punish claims, even mistaken ones; we just want to restore equity. Our primary objective here isn't "to restore equity"; it is to rule "as equitably as possible" within the constraints mandated by L70. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 06:33:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16JXA322466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:33:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16JWvH22425 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:32:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g16JN4X13876; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:23:05 +0100 Message-ID: <00ca01c1af43$b3dd9f00$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grant Sterling" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:23:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 Sterling wrote (and I have a strong feeling we really have the same opinion?) > >And if the Director can point out one such play that will give opponents one > >or more of the remaining tricks (not neccessarily for a trump) because of > >something I have overlooked, it is still my opinion that he is bound by Laws > >70C and/or 70D together with the footnote to do so. The fact that the > >applicable play is "careless", even grossly careless, or "inferior for the > > The footnote does not say this. It does not say that > "grossly careless" is the same as "careless". I have argued > that the word "irrational", as actually used in English and > as defined in some dictionaries, often [maybe even usually] > includes "grossly careless". OK, I agree to that, but let me give an example (spade is trump) Dummy has: 9S 7S and 2C Declarer has AS KS and 2D and has completely forgot an outstanding trump 8 He plays the 2D. If LHO produces the 8S it is irrational (beyond any doubt) not to overruff in dummy, but if LHO produces some insignificant card it is careless (I would say grossly careless) but not irrational to ruff with the 7 regardless of with which opponent the outstanding trump should happen to be found. Remember that declarer has forgotten the outstanding 8S so he is likely to just demand a trump from dummy. > > >class > >of player involved" is explicitly stated as no reason to divert from this > >rule. > > > >In a separate post I gave an example of what it takes in my opinion (and in > >fact what we train TD candidates for in Norway) to rule "irrational" play. > > Suppose I play the ace of diamonds, it is trumped > on my left, and I discard from dummy instead of overtrumping. > Please explain by what definition of "irrational" and > "careless" this play is irrational. Isn't this just really, > really, grossly careless? No, particularly when you as I assume have no loser to discard it is definitely irrational not to overruff in dummy. > If you use the standard "what players do", then you > must admit that players _do_, occasionally, play like this. That is exactly why I frown when statistics are brought into the matter of deciding irrationality. > So if "irrational" means "something players never do" then > this play isn't irrational. If "irrational" means "insane", > I am sure we would never take this as proof of insanity, so > the play isn't irrational. If "irrational" means "something > that will never gain and might lose", then playing the > ace of diamonds and discarding [in a two-card ending > with a trump in dummy and one in your hand] can never > gain and will sometimes lose, so it is irrational to do > it even if the trump's on your right and not on your > left. You have, like me I trust, seen many post mortems showing that the player had selected a line of play that could never win and overlooked the winning line of play? Does that make the selected line of play irrational? Of course not - at the moment the player made his selection. Afterwards - yes. 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 Feb 7 06:47:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16JlgD25162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:47:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16JlWH25135 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YXtl-0005dR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:38:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206142444.00af7e50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:38:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@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 01:21 PM 2/6/02, Grant wrote: > Suppose I play the ace of diamonds, it is trumped >on my left, and I discard from dummy instead of overtrumping. >Please explain by what definition of "irrational" and >"careless" this play is irrational. No problem. An act which ignores immediate sensory input is, by definition, "irrational" (converse not implied) -- that is why someone who (in real life) is acting irrationally may be said to have "taken leave of his senses". It is rational believe that (and therefore to play as though) the opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent does have a trump in his hand. It is irrational to believe that (and therefore to play as though) the opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent's trump is face up in front of you on the table. Is anyone really having trouble distinguishing these two cases? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 7 07:52:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16KqCa07838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:52:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16KpwH07793 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:52:03 +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 g16KgQg05451; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:42:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:34:21 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> Message-ID: <20020206154232-r01010800-fa3c0fa3-0904-0109@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 2/5/02 at 11:15 PM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > a key requirement is that players shall not, at dealer's second call, > allow for departures from announced methods that, third in hand, are > characteristic of the partnership and undisclosed. Um, a key requirement of what? The Laws, or the system policy? If I understand you correctly, if the card doesn't say "we may open light, or with a four card major, in third or fourth seat", then a passed hand can't use Drury, even if the CC says they do. Or does putting Drury on the card disclose that the partnership may open light? 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 Feb 7 08:18:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16LINH12752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:18:24 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16LIEH12722 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:18:15 +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 g16L97g10515 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:09:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:00:12 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20020206160913-r01010800-d62a9198-0904-0109@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 2/6/02 at 11:28 AM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > My question is : can you compel the claimer to follow a line of play > *nobody* would *ever* follow when in his specific state of mind ? You cannot compel the claimer to follow, or not follow, *any* line of play. If he has stated a line, that's his line. If he hasn't, he has no line. In either case, the TD judges how many tricks he gets. IOW, it's not a question of compelling the claimer to do, or not do, anything. It's a question of the TD's judgement. I'm sure we all know this, I just think it's important to recognize that the onus is on the TD at this point, not the player. 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 Feb 7 08:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16LLka13407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:21:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16LLWH13367 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:21:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16L9el00362; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:09:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:11:04 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206142444.00af7e50@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@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 02:38 PM 2/6/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:21 PM 2/6/02, Grant wrote: > >> Suppose I play the ace of diamonds, it is trumped >>on my left, and I discard from dummy instead of overtrumping. >>Please explain by what definition of "irrational" and >>"careless" this play is irrational. > >No problem. An act which ignores immediate sensory input is, by >definition, "irrational" (converse not implied) -- that is why someone who >(in real life) is acting irrationally may be said to have "taken leave of >his senses". It is 'by definition' irrational? By what definition? My point, again, is that people on this list sometimes argue about what players actually do ("no-one ever does that, so it's irrational", 'I've seen players do that, so it's just careless'). I assume we agree that this way of proceeding is hopeless--players _do_, in fact, sometimes do hopelessly irrational things like failing to overruff, and so: a) The fact that someone does it doesn't mean it isn't irrational, and b) If we judge claims based on what someone has ever done, then almost every claim, even the ones no non-BL would ever contest, will have to be judged by the most horrendous play possible, including the illegal ones. OTOH, others argue that "irrational" means something very close to "insane". If we accept that definition, we get the same result, because I would not call someone insane who failed to overruff. Even those people who say that we should not apply class of player to 'irrational' because it implies that bad players are less rational seem to have something like this definition in mind--to be less rational is to be insane. When you play up to the AQ, lefty inserts the K and you automatically say "Queen", have you taken leave of your senses? Are you insane? Less rational then the player who puts up the Ace? Why isn't someone who fails to ruff high in the case where the forgotten trump is on his right less rational the then person who ruffs high? How about the person who blocks entries--can't he _see_ that he's going to block them? >It is rational believe that (and therefore to play as though) the >opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent does have a trump in his hand. Sometimes, anyway. :) >It is irrational to believe that (and therefore to play as though) the >opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent's trump is face up in >front of you on the table. Why? I doubt if you can find a single dictionary or other source that will give you a general definition of "irrational" that will produce this result. >Is anyone really having trouble distinguishing these two cases? Yes, I am. I can understand that if "irrational" means "colossally careless or inferior", then since it is more careless and inferior to fail to overruff when you actually see a verifiable forgotten trump than to fail to ruff high when you think there's no trump to be overruffing, the former might be irrational even though the latter wasn't. But I am repeatedly told that this is not what "irrational" means. So I want someone to tell me why "irrational" cannot mean that. The dictionaries I look at give definitions consistent with mine. The way people usually use the word seems consistent with my definition. OK, that made no sense...let's take another run at this. As I see it, we have three options: a) Forget about "irrational" and "careless" and all that, and make decision-proceedures for all disputed claims. I think this is undesireable on many grounds, but it's an option. b) Use the footnote, and apply it with the definition I gave [or something like it], allowing TDs to judge whether they think an action is idiotic enough to be irrational or not. c) Use the footnote, and apply some other definition of "irrational". If you choose 'c' over 'b', then you need to explain what your proposed definition of "irrational" is (in such a way that it can be the basis for decisions), and why it's better than mine. If you could say "my definition uses the real meaning of the word from the dictionary", or "my definition corresponds with the way people really use the word", I would accept those arguments, but I claim that my usage is just as in accord with them as any other. [And, further, that the other definitions don't accord at all with the applications people claim to make for them, such as in this case.] If you could say "my definition gives us a perfect decision procedure", I would accept that, but although I have seen proposed decision-procedures I have yet to see a definition that captures them. So I am stuck. I see decision rules that correspond to no coherent definition of "irrational", and I see definitions of "irrational" that correspond to no decision-rules that people seem to want to adopt. Mr. Burn wishes us to drop the definitions and simply pick rules. I wish us to abandon all hope of giving rules and stick with the definitions [my versions of them, anyway :)]. The burden of proof is on the people who want both to show us how to have our cake and eat it, too. I think it is impossible. [We are now required to rule that all illegal plays are considered "irrational" for claim purposes, but I see no non-ad-hoc definition of irrational that makes all illegal plays irrational that doesn't also make almost all careless and inferior plays irrational as well, for example.] >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 08:37:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Lb8C16246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:37:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16Lb0H16225 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:37:00 +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 g16LRsg06952 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:27:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:25:35 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <01C1AF15.C8218AE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Message-ID: <20020206162801-r01010800-a1d96430-0904-0109@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 2/6/02 at 1:54 PM, tsvecfob@iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) wrote: > However does the Teneriffe mindset help us in any way to clear up a > previous thread where declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having > forgotton that the 9 was outstanding? Does declarer get 3 tricks > (which he probably would do if he played them out) or does he lose a > trick to the defender's trump. Rephrasing the question, just to make sure I have it right, "is leading either the 7 or the 2 of trumps a 'normal' play?" If it is, defender gets a trump trick. If it isn't, he doesn't. "I am only an egg" , but it seems to me that it is *not* normal to play either low card first. Those of you with more experience than I may disagree - if so, please tell me on what basis. And if the basis is experience in your locale, should that be applied to *my* locale, where the experience may have been different? 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 Feb 7 08:49:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16LmvA18360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:48:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16LmYH18300 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16LcTl13421; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:38:29 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206152328.00a37c00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:39:28 -0600 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: In-Reply-To: <010701c1af41$02ee6f00$3f1c7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:03 PM 2/6/02 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: > > > The Burn school holds that "equity", > > "justice", "fairness" and all such terms are defined by the Laws > > of the game, and hence the Laws of the game, whatever they may > > be, are ipso facto "fair, equitable, and just". > >Not quite. The Burn school holds that concepts such as "equity", >"justice" and "fairness" have no place in the Laws of a game, because >they make the game impossible to administer. I stand corrected. > > Ergo, he will argue that giving the worst result possible is > > exactly as equitable as your method. > >I make no such assertion. I assert merely that giving the worst result >possible is a procedure that will ensure that every claimer is treated >in exactly the same way as every other claimer, and would be treated in >this way by any official regardless of that official's competence. I >consider this objective a highly desirable one; I also consider that >arguments about the meanings of English words that have been used out of >context in the first place are nothing but an impediment to achieving >this desirable objective. We may make common cause, then, insofar as we agree that it is impossible to define "irrational" [et al] and at the same time achieve that objective, and so we only disagree about how desireable it is. :) The burden of proof, I say again, is on those people who think we can have the words and the objective, too. > > I, OTOH, being a Natural Law theorist about Bridge Laws > > as much as I am about real laws, think that in the context of > > claims "equitable" means something like "producing the result > > that would have been produced had the hand been played out". > >If you want the result you would have got if you played the hand out, >then play it out. If instead you make some foolish claim, you have >ceased to play the hand, and should not expect what would have been >yours had you continued to do so. If I had played the hand out, it would have taken me much longer. My experience is that 99% of all claims produce no dispute, and I would far rather my opponents make one bad claim in 100 than play all their hands out. The stiffer the penalties for bad claims, the more often I'm going to have to sit there and worry about what to discard while my opponent runs off all his winning tricks to no purpose because he got burned on an imperfect claim statement once. >I would mention, in order to illustrate the absurdities to which we are >led in the present state of affairs, this anomaly. A declarer leads >towards dummy's AQ and, without observing that LHO has played the king, >calls for the queen. That queen is played, and the trick is lost. >Similarly, a declarer leads a card and, without observing that LHO has >ruffed, discards from dummy instead of overruffing. That trick is also >lost. But a declarer who claims, having forgotten the existence of an >outstanding trump, is deemed to have been going to notice LHO's ruff in >time to overruff - not to do so has been considered "irrational". This >is one of a number of cases in which a claimer is given not the result >he might have got had he played the hand out, but a better result. Now, We cannot possibly know for certain whether declarer would have called for the Queen when the King appeared on his left. There is a chance he would have, but that chance is remote. If we imagine bridge being played in two parallel universes, identical except that one of them allows claims and the other forbids them, it is certainly true that some percentage of the time a declarer in one universe gets a better score by claiming than his twin who played the hand out. Against this there are probably 100 cases where the twin gets a better score playing the hand out. [He takes the double-finesse the correct way while the claiming twin forgot to mention it, the defenders revoke, etc.] I am more than willing to pay off to claimer 1 time in 101. >this is so wholly ridiculous as actually to deserve the epithet >"irrational". And yet, it is the way the Laws of bridge are applied by >real live people with two legs each. It would be tragic, if it weren't >funny. It makes perfect sense to me. :) To which you may say, "Q.e.d." :) >David Burn Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 08:55:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16Lt9s19276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:55:10 +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 g16Lt0H19256 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:55:01 +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 g16Ljtg01394 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:45:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:44:05 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206084741.00af32a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020206164601-r01010800-f997cb41-0904-0109@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 2/6/02 at 8:57 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > I suggest that one way the lawmakers could eliminate any possible > problem in this area would be to do away with L70C3 altogether (that > doesn't mean I favor doing so, but at the moment I don't oppose it > either). How about "Claimer shall state a complete line of play. If he fails to do so, TD shall rule that he loses any tricks that could be lost on any line of play"? 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 Feb 7 09:08:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16M8E621558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:08:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g16M83H21537 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:08:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g16LwKV21693; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:58:20 +0100 Message-ID: <015501c1af59$64391fe0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020206162801-r01010800-a1d96430-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:58:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > However does the Teneriffe mindset help us in any way to clear up a > > previous thread where declarer claimed holding J72 of trumps having > > forgotton that the 9 was outstanding? Does declarer get 3 tricks > > (which he probably would do if he played them out) or does he lose a > > trick to the defender's trump. > > Rephrasing the question, just to make sure I have it right, "is leading either > the 7 or the 2 of trumps a 'normal' play?" If it is, defender gets a trump > trick. If it isn't, he doesn't. > > "I am only an egg" , but it seems to me that it is *not* normal to play > either low card first. ....(snip from here) Back to square one. Based upon my training and practise as TD I would rule that given declarer believes he alone has any trump left so how he plays his trumps is immaterial and as such he _might_ "carelessly" play a low one first, opponents would be awarded one trick. This is to give opponents redress for the possibility that if he had played it out instead of claiming he just _might_ equally well carelessly have played it that way. As long as there is a claim noboby can tell for sure how the play would have gone had there been no claim (unless the claimer makes it clear with a statement how he intend to play it out), and opponents are to be given the benefit of any doubt. The level of a player is to be ignored here, once an expert player has made the mistake of an errouneous claim he might as well (as any less experienced player) have made a mistake in the playout. Apparently (according to the many objections to my view) not even a $0,02 worth opinion, but that is the way we have been trained for years in Norway. 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 Feb 7 09:23:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g16MMlC24216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:22:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g16MMcH24200 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:22:38 +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 g16MCwg06753 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:13:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:04:48 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00f701c1af52$734279c0$7d04e080@isi.com> Message-ID: <20020206171305-r01010800-b9caae0a-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 2/6/02 at 1:08 PM, richard.willey@windriver.com (Richard Willey) wrote: > I've found it easiest to simply fill out two convention cards. > The first documents agreements in first/second seat. > The second describes agreements in 3rd/4th seat. So are you then playing a "two card" system, requiring a pre-alert? 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 Feb 7 11:33:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g170WgW12773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:32:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g170WXH12746 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:32:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9908 invoked by uid 504); 7 Feb 2002 00:17:40 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.818073 secs); 07 Feb 2002 00:17:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.196) by 0 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 00:17:38 -0000 Message-ID: <005401c1af6d$90c35120$c416b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: <002a01c1af13$cdddf740$fd32e150@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:22:42 +1300 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: Tim Westmead ; Cc: Tim Westmead Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "At whatever time the deed took place > Macavity wasn't there!" T.S.E. > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > To: > Cc: > Sent: 06 February 2002 10:35 > Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > > > > In-Reply-To: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Oh, yes, players do make a general statement > > > about their openers and neglect to disclose a distinction, > > > if there is one in practice, for third-in-hand openers. That > > > the majority may be guilty of this negligence is no > > > justification of it, especially where it entails more than > > > a mere shading of values. > > > > Not sure about this. Surely if something is a majority > > practice it's not a special partnership understanding > > (and opponents can reasonably be expected to > > understand its meaning). Obviously it's something for > > which an SO could mandate specific disclosure > > requirements but probably not a priority. > > > +=+ I think we have some measure of agreement. > Definition is lacking as to where the line is to be > drawn if the regulating authority does not specify, > and lacking definition it will be up to ACs to set > standards case by case. My experience is that appeal's committees do not set standards - they rule this way today and another tomorrow. > But I can agree that it is > common to shade strength opposite a passed > partner - whose responses are nonetheless subject > to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: for example > he is not allowed to pass instead of doubling a 1NT > overcall, following P - P - 1S - 1NT, with a hand that > would double 1S - 1NT - ? (say 10 HCP). The point > is made in a WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000. > ~ G ~ +=+ Where can I find this minute? Are you saying that one must disclose that which I believe is part of general bridge knowledge and not special partnership understanding? 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 Feb 7 13:00:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g171xXp29655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:59:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g171xOH29630 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:59:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-194.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.194] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16Ydi4-0002kt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:50:49 +1300 Message-ID: <001d01c1af79$dcd477e0$c26837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:50:44 +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 Surely this is covered by Law 68--- "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress". --- and Law 68's footnote (19)------ " If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly". Surely he must now loose to the HQ, as he has underled from the K. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Laws" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:02 AM Subject: [BLML] Senior concession > Hello, > just a "small" concession. > pair even, senior good level, (french nearly top firsts serie) > contract 7H, > declarer with everything else good need to pick up trumps with AKJ8xxxx > opposite xxx. > Yes, 8+3, missing the queen ... > He plays x from dummy, discard, "Ho, please, look if you don't have one > (friends at the table)" " sorry, i really don't have", Ace, small. > " One down, one trump for you". > Player with Qx agree one down, knowing 11 trumps in opponents hands. > Travelling score sheet : lots of 7H making, 6H+1 etc. so declarer looks > hands and discover he had 11 trumps (miscounted his trumps?) and ask for 7H > making. He calls TD. > Know, what? > L71 said you can cancel a concession if you cannot lose the trick on any > non-irrational play. > Is playing a small trump before K irrational? > Is not cashing KH at next trick irrational? when you think opp has Qxx > beside AKJ etc.? > For me yes, but what do you think? > If declarer don't cash KH, we suppose opponent can save a ruff on side > suits. At least, uppercut. > And, some more, should opponent volonteer 7H = when declarer wants to cancel > his concession? Oh course, he can, but should he? > Olivier. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 7 19:09:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1788mh03849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:08:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1788cH03816 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:08:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g177xQg17887 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:59:26 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6233F1.8000005@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 08:59:45 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <20020206164601-r01010800-f997cb41-0904-0109@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 It's Bridge, Ed, but not as we know it. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 2/6/02 at 8:57 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > > >>I suggest that one way the lawmakers could eliminate any possible >>problem in this area would be to do away with L70C3 altogether (that >>doesn't mean I favor doing so, but at the moment I don't oppose it >>either). >> > > > How about "Claimer shall state a complete line of play. If he fails to do so, TD > shall rule that he loses any tricks that could be lost on any line of play"? > This is indeed the best way of avoiding the word "normal" altogether, but are you willing to be the first director who ruled against a claimer holding 12 trumps (minus the two) and an Ace ? (when the opponent has the deuce and a void) I don't want to be that director. You would be changing a basic element of the game, almost tantamount to changing the order of the suits. "Starting on 1/9/2007, clubs rank above diamonds". > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 7 19:09:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1789XB03971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:09:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g1789MH03951 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:09:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.132.140] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YjTd-0000Dq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 08:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c1afad$d9e8cc00$8c84403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020206154232-r01010800-fa3c0fa3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:01:58 -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: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > On 2/5/02 at 11:15 PM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > If I understand you correctly, if the card doesn't say "we may > open light, or with a four card major, in third or fourth seat", > then a passed hand can't use Drury, even if the CC says they > do. Or does putting Drury on the card disclose that the > partnership may open light? > > Regards, > +=+ I would support the argument that putting Drury on the card forewarns of the possibility of light openers in situations where it applies. This allows opponents to ask the minimum strength expected. Change of min suit length is not revealed by it. (That has nothing to do, of course, with questions to do with controlling psychics if such controls are not allowed. Repeated use to protect psychics comes up against such a regulation if it exists. Someone has to draw a line separating 'light' from 'psychic', one opportunity for which lies in disclosure of the partnership expectation of what is 'light'.) ~ 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 Feb 7 19:13:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g178D0t04594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:13:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g178CoH04552 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:12:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1783Sg22762 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:03:28 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6234E4.1090705@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:03:48 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Eric, the point that Alain is trying to make is that the claimer does not think he might be wrong. So he will not play an extra round of trump to gather them. In fact, we don't know what he will do, because he will always claim. And n ow the EBLAC has decided he will cash his suits trumps last. What's so difficult about that ? This was a case where discussion was possible, and now some eminent authority (of which I was part) has decided that the word "normal" has to be interpreted in this manner. If the whole world would follow this, we would be closer to agreement. Why continue to discuss this ? Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:28 AM 2/6/02, Alain wrote: > >> AG : I'm sorry, Sven, but I feel you failed to address the question. >> My question is : can you compel the claimer to follow a line of play >> *nobody* would *ever* follow when in his specific state of mind ? >> Claiming without explanation, and thinking of playing one more round >> of trumps, means you simultaneously think that there is no lurker and >> that there could be one. That would be irrational, wouldn't it ? (as >> Heaviside once put it, from there on you can mathematically prove that >> I'm the Pope) > > > Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I > think that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? > > A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as > follows: > > (1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. > > (2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. > > (3) But I could be wrong. > > Plus EITHER: > > (4a) If I am wrong, I think the likelihood of a trump lurker is greater > than the likelihood of an outstanding side-suit high card. > > OR: > > (4b) If I am wrong, I think the likelihood of an outstanding side-suit > high card is greater than the likelihood of a trump lurker. > > To me, neither of these two lines of reasoning sounds the least bit > irrational. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Thu Feb 7 19:16:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g178Frc05125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:15:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g178FiH05096 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:15:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1786Wg25950 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:06:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62359C.4010704@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:06:52 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206092827.00af0c00@pop.starpower.net> 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, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:48 AM 2/6/02, Grattan wrote: > > > If we were to interpret the word "irrational" in TFLB in a way that > conforms to the normal "dictionary" meaning of the word and stopped > muddying the waters by worrying about the "class of player involved" -- > in other words, if we finally stopped pretending that weaker bridge > players are necessarily less rational than stronger ones -- we would > quickly come 90%+ of the way towards establishing a consensual > understanding of "what is 'irrational'" (i.e. what would be irrational > for anybody, like cashing broken suits from the bottom up), and 90%+ of > our rulings in these situations would no longer be "all about > judgement[s] of what is 'irrational'" that differ from one committee to > the next. > Which is exactly what the EBLAC has done : they have establlished a consensual understanding. This is a case where we can debate blue in the face what is rational and not (we're doing that right now). Why can't we simply follow a consensus position ? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Thu Feb 7 19:18:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g178Iot05580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:18:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g178IeH05562 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:18:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1789Wg29145 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:09:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62364F.8070608@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:09:51 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206112515.00af38f0@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 10:57 AM 2/6/02, Alain wrote: > >> At 10:01 6/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>> Of course not. Have you never said, to yourself or someone else, "I >>> think that such-and-such is true, but I could be wrong"? >>> >>> A careful bridge player, playing the hand out, might well reason as >>> follows: >>> >>> (1) I think there is no lurker in trumps. >>> >>> (2) I think there is no outstanding high card in my side suit. >>> >>> (3) But I could be wrong. >> >> >> (3A) but you wouldn't claim in that case ... Claiming is essentially >> pretending you can't be wrong in (1) and (2). If you have the faintest >> shadow of a doubt, you don't claim. Or do you ?:) > > > Not "pretending", merely "failing to realize". Surely, a player whose > thought processes encompass (1) and (2), but who is wrong (having > forgotten an outstanding card), and then claims before getting to (3), > has done something which is "careless... but not irrational". > Eric, you have been on this list long enough to know that this reasoning is simply wrong. The act of claiming is careless, but this does not turn irrational acts into merely careless ones. > Not that it matters. A particular play by a particular player in a > particular situation is either rational or irrational. It doesn't > matter whether we're talking about what he would actually do on a day > when he's being careful, considering the possbility that he might be > wrong about the outstanding cards, and playing the hand out, or about > what a committee would decide on a day when he has carelessly claimed. > Well, and all we are saying is that we have refined the definition of normal and irrational in this case. You cannot get out of this discussion by arguing with just the Lawbook. So simply follow the recommendation, why don't you ? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Thu Feb 7 19:24:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g178NpY06352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:23:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g178NgH06335 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:23:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g178Ebg04593 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:14:37 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C623781.4010009@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:14:57 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > When you play up to the AQ, lefty inserts the K and you > automatically say "Queen", have you taken leave of your senses? > Are you insane? Less rational then the player who puts up > the Ace? Why isn't someone who fails to ruff high in the > case where the forgotten trump is on his right less rational > the then person who ruffs high? How about the person who > blocks entries--can't he _see_ that he's going to block > them? > Look, this too has been decided. It is deemed irrational not to overruff. You can NOT argue this with the lawbook. We need consensus. That's what this list is for. Please stop using examples about cases where there is consensus. > -- 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 Feb 7 19:27:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g178Rlv07011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g178RbH06987 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:27:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47923.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.51]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g178IWg08793 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:18:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62386B.7020707@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:18:51 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> It certainly isn't obvious that the Tenerife guideline ("trumps last") >> is _demanded_ by the claim laws, but neither is it obviously in >> conflict with them. > > > Of course it is--the claim laws tell the TD to enforce > equity, and sometimes the Tenerife guideline will produce > inequitable results. > How can you say that - we rule the result that any player would have gotten, how can that be inequitable. We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not to play "trumps last". That must certainly be a close decision. Now we have tried to pose a consensus, and you are saying that this can be inequitable ? Please a little more respect for a fine bunch of people. > -- 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 Feb 8 00:19:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17DIdb08657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 00:18:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g17DITH08632 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 00:18:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.208] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16YoIh-000B25-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:09:19 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:08:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:08:14 -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 Herman wrote: We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not to play "trumps last". That must certainly be a close decision. Now we have tried to pose a consensus, and you are saying that this can be inequitable ? Please a little more respect for a fine bunch of people. DWS wrote earlier: The EBU has discussed it and does not see this ruling as correct in the EBU. Their view is that any card might be played - three tricks to the defence. Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 01:04:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17E4KR17969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:04:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17E4BH17946 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:04:12 +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 g17DsuM15931; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:54:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:54:56 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C6233F1.8000005@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020207085503-r01010800-c0d6593e-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 2/7/02 at 8:59 AM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > This is indeed the best way of avoiding the word "normal" > altogether, but are you willing to be the first director who > ruled against a claimer holding 12 trumps (minus the two) > and an Ace ? (when the opponent has the deuce and a void) > I don't want to be that director. > You would be changing a basic element of the game, almost > tantamount to changing the order of the suits. Would I? I don't see it. There are directors here who I'm sure wouldn't want to "be that director" either. In fact, they would probably not rule according to my proposed change even if it were in effect. That's not so good either. 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 Feb 8 01:23:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17EMk721770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:22:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17EMaH21737 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:22:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YpIp-0003Fo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:13:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206174141.00b01b60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:13:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206142444.00af7e50@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@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 04:11 PM 2/6/02, Grant wrote: >At 02:38 PM 2/6/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>At 01:21 PM 2/6/02, Grant wrote: >> >>> Suppose I play the ace of diamonds, it is trumped >>>on my left, and I discard from dummy instead of overtrumping. >>>Please explain by what definition of "irrational" and >>>"careless" this play is irrational. >> >>No problem. An act which ignores immediate sensory input is, by >>definition, "irrational" (converse not implied) -- that is why >>someone who (in real life) is acting irrationally may be said to have >>"taken leave of his senses". > > It is 'by definition' irrational? By what definition? By some definition that provides Grant with what he asked for: a definition by which this play is irrational. > My point, again, is that people on this list sometimes >argue about what players actually do ("no-one ever does that, so >it's irrational", 'I've seen players do that, so it's just >careless'). I assume we agree that this way of proceeding >is hopeless--players _do_, in fact, sometimes do hopelessly >irrational things like failing to overruff, and so: > a) The fact that someone does it doesn't mean it isn't >irrational, and > b) If we judge claims based on what someone has ever >done, then almost every claim, even the ones no non-BL would >ever contest, will have to be judged by the most horrendous >play possible, including the illegal ones. With this I agree 100%. > OTOH, others argue that "irrational" means something >very close to "insane". If we accept that definition, we get >the same result, because I would not call someone insane >who failed to overruff. We needn't make judgments about players' overall mental health, but I would certainly call the failure to overruff an insane act. >Even those people who say that we >should not apply class of player to 'irrational' because it >implies that bad players are less rational seem to have something >like this definition in mind--to be less rational is to be >insane. To be less rational than "rational" is to do something as though insane. That's not quite the same shade of meaning as "be insane", which implies that he will act as though insane a significant proportion of the time, not necessarily only at the bridge table. > When you play up to the AQ, lefty inserts the K and you >automatically say "Queen", have you taken leave of your senses? Yes. When this happens, you do not play the queen because you are trying to lose the trick. You play the queen because you *expect it to win*. To expect the queen to win when the opponent's king is already on the table *is* insane. You *have* "taken leave of your senses"; your brain has refused to perceive what your eyes have seen. >Are you insane? Less rational then the player who puts up >the Ace? Why isn't someone who fails to ruff high in the >case where the forgotten trump is on his right less rational >the then person who ruffs high? I don't know about "less rational", whatever that means, but neither is acting irractionally. Both of them believe that there is no outstanding trump, and neither has evidence available to their immediate perception to contradict that belief. > How about the person who >blocks entries--can't he _see_ that he's going to block >them? Apparently not. But this isn't irrational. What would be irrational would be to persist in the belief that his play cannot result in his entries being blocked even after he has made the play and his entries have become blocked. >>It is rational believe that (and therefore to play as though) the >>opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent does have a trump in >>his hand. > > Sometimes, anyway. :) > >>It is irrational to believe that (and therefore to play as though) >>the opponents' hold no more trumps when an opponent's trump is face >>up in front of you on the table. > > Why? I doubt if you can find a single dictionary or other >source that will give you a general definition of "irrational" that >will produce this result. I can't imagine finding a definition of "irrational" by which it wasn't. Is Grant really suggesting that if you believe that something doesn't exist, I produce it and show it to you, and you then continue to persist in your belief that it doesn't exist, this is rational behavior by any definition? >>Is anyone really having trouble distinguishing these two cases? > > Yes, I am. I can understand that if "irrational" means >"colossally careless or inferior", then since it is more careless >and inferior to fail to overruff when you actually see a verifiable >forgotten trump than to fail to ruff high when you think there's >no trump to be overruffing, the former might be irrational even >though the latter wasn't. But I am repeatedly told that this >is not what "irrational" means. So I want someone to tell me why >"irrational" cannot mean that. The dictionaries I look at give >definitions consistent with mine. The way people usually use the >word seems consistent with my definition. "Irrational" does not mean "colossally careless or inferior"; it means "not rational". A rational person integrates his sensory input with his conscious thought (he "believes his own eyes"); an irrational person does not. In a two-card ending, with spades trump, you hold A/A/-/- opposite K/-/x/-, and expect to take the rest of the tricks. Obviously, it would be as "colossally careless or inferior" as you could get to fail to crossruff -- it's hard to imagine a more egregious error. Nevertheless, you might play HA, and, when LHO follows, discard. Careless, yes; stupid, yes; egregious error, yes. But not an *irrational* play, because at the point at which you discard, while it might be wrong and it might be stupid, you still believe that it will result in your taking the rest of the tricks. Indeed, it very likely will. Now try to explain how, when LHO ruffs the HA, you might be able to take to rest of the tricks by discarding your diamond from dummy. You cannot. It is not possible. To believe that you can discard and still take the rest of the tricks is irrational. *That* makes it irrational to discard. > OK, that made no sense...let's take another run at this. >As I see it, we have three options: > a) Forget about "irrational" and "careless" and all that, >and make decision-proceedures for all disputed claims. I think >this is undesireable on many grounds, but it's an option. > b) Use the footnote, and apply it with the definition >I gave [or something like it], allowing TDs to judge whether >they think an action is idiotic enough to be irrational or not. > c) Use the footnote, and apply some other definition of >"irrational". > > If you choose 'c' over 'b', then you need to explain >what your proposed definition of "irrational" is (in such a >way that it can be the basis for decisions), and why it's better >than mine. If you could say "my definition uses the real >meaning of the word from the dictionary", or "my definition >corresponds with the way people really use the word", I >would accept those arguments, but I claim that my usage is >just as in accord with them as any other. [And, further, >that the other definitions don't accord at all with the >applications people claim to make for them, such as in >this case.] If you could say "my definition gives us >a perfect decision procedure", I would accept that, >but although I have seen proposed decision-procedures I >have yet to see a definition that captures them. > So I am stuck. I see decision rules that >correspond to no coherent definition of "irrational", >and I see definitions of "irrational" that correspond to >no decision-rules that people seem to want to adopt. Mr. >Burn wishes us to drop the definitions and simply pick >rules. I wish us to abandon all hope of giving rules and >stick with the definitions [my versions of them, anyway :)]. >The burden of proof is on the people who want both to show >us how to have our cake and eat it, too. I think it is >impossible. [We are now required to rule that all >illegal plays are considered "irrational" for claim >purposes, but I see no non-ad-hoc definition of irrational >that makes all illegal plays irrational that doesn't also >make almost all careless and inferior plays irrational >as well, for example.] I am not prepared to carve a definition of "irrational" on a stone tablet and defend it to the death. I do not claim to know precisely what "irrational" should mean. My argument with Grant's position is that whatever the exact definition is, it must be one that makes a qualitative distinction between "careless and inferior" and "irrational" rather than a merely quantitative one. Because TFLB uses the words "careless or inferior..., but not irrational", which requires a qualitative distinction to be meaningful. I have sufficient faith in our lawmakers to believe that had they meant "somewhat careless or inferior, but not very careless or inferior", that's what they'd have written, or words to that effect. I do not accept that if a play is "careless or inferior" enough, that somehow transforms it into one which is no longer "careless or inferior", but something else, whatever we call it or however we define it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 01:24:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17EOBu22057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:24:11 +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 g17EO2H22032 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:24:02 +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 PAA22072; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:12:05 +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 PAA05272; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:14:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020207151346.00a83890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:18:17 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening In-Reply-To: <20020206154232-r01010800-fa3c0fa3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <000201c1aedf$c5a2b7c0$848d403e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:34 6/02/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 2/5/02 at 11:15 PM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > a key requirement is that players shall not, at dealer's second call, > > allow for departures from announced methods that, third in hand, are > > characteristic of the partnership and undisclosed. > >Um, a key requirement of what? The Laws, or the system policy? > >If I understand you correctly, if the card doesn't say "we may open light, or >with a four card major, in third or fourth seat", then a passed hand can't use >Drury, even if the CC says they do. Or does putting Drury on the card disclose >that the partnership may open light? AG : surely it doesn't, since some pairs use 'Drury in all positions', in effect a semi-natural 2C response with 2D as the negative rebid (neither 6 in the major, nor 4 in the other, nor 14+) but still play classical (say 11+ or compensation) openings in all seats. I've already used a Druryish 2C facing non-light 3rd hand openings, to make *some* response forcing. Else, what do you respond on a mildly fitted 11 count ? A jump in a non-suit ? Light openings usually imply some means of checking the quality, but the converse is not true. 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 Feb 8 01:56:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17EuUk28301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:56:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17EuLH28276 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:56:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YppV-00035z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:47:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207092246.00affaf0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:47:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <20020206164601-r01010800-f997cb41-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206084741.00af32a0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 2/6/02, Ed wrote: >How about "Claimer shall state a complete line of play. If he fails to >do so, TD >shall rule that he loses any tricks that could be lost on any line of >play"? Such a rule would solve all of our problems with adjudicating claims, both legally and practically. It's down side, however, was set forth clearly by Grant in his recent post in reply to David B. Let's not lose the forest of making the game better for our players for the tree of making life easier for our TDs and ACs. From the legal perspective, it would provide us with a mechanical process for adjudicating claims. That would eliminate problems of interpretation, remove any exercise of judgment from the process, eliminate the resulting inconsistencies among rulings by different TDs or ACS, and insure that all contestants were treated equally. Sounds pretty good. But the reality, as Grant argues, is that it would solve all our problems in a much more practical and straightforward way. Once it was in place long enough for its effects to begin to be felt by bridge players everywhere, virtually nobody would ever claim. That would sho'nuff solve all our current problems with adjudicating faulty claims! I agree with Grant; it just isn't worth it. I am firmly convinced that if a player claims the rest of the tricks, implicitly assuming that he can take five tricks with AKQJ2 opposite 10983, but failing to say so explicitly, and discovers that he is scored as having lost a trick in the suit by leading the 2 to the 3, none of the four players present at the table when the ruling is made will ever attempt to make another claim for the rest of their lives. I, for one, would rather suffer the occasional migraine as a TD or AC member from trying to deal with faulty claims under the current laws than see this happen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 02:10:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17FAln01032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:10:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17FAbH01004 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:10:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04647 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:01:28 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:41:42 GMT Subject: [BLML] X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.207.54 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all - a classic example of the current claims thread .... > >S KQJ8x Bidding 1C P 1S DBL >H Qxx RDBL P P 2D >D KTx 3C P 4S all pass >C Ax > > Opening lead AD. Heart to ace. C to A. >S 76x KD, heart away. KS, S9,small,small. >H AJ TD ruff. Spade to the 8. SJ to ace. >D x Heart to Q, K. heart back won by west. >C KQJTxxx > > >At this stage the cards are > > S Kx > H - > D - > C x > >S T S - >H x H - >D x D xx >C - C x > > S - > H - > D - > C KQJ > >Declarer now faced his cards claiming -1. The opps called the TD. There was a trump outstanding and they felt declarer had forgotten about it. Td ruled declarer would ruff the red suit return and play a club to the K allowing the ST to score for -2. Declarer felt this was ridiculous. He clearly knew the ST was out and who had it. He was going to ruff the red suit play the SK and claim. Playing a club to the K was completely illogical. He hadn't stated a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to need no explanation. Your call. -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 03:08:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17G7m711257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:07:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17G7dH11224 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:07:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:58:30 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.152.254.185] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:58:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2002 15:58:30.0069 (UTC) FILETIME=[49595E50:01C1AFF0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It occurred to me that members of the list might like to gather in Houston next month. If so I would be pleased to do the leg work. The tournament site is in the middle of one of the world's premier shopping districts with a large variety of restaurants either in the mall or close by. Just let me know what you would like and I can run it down. I am sure that David Stevenson (no, I haven't asked him .yet) would post things like a map and menu on his web page. Regards Roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 03:18:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17GIIs13077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:18:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17GI9H13052 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:18:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Yr6e-0006Lk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:09:04 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207101321.00aa14e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:09:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C623901.50508@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206134126.00af4ad0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:21 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 11:26 AM 2/6/02, Steve wrote: >> >>>There are two reasonable approaches we could take: >>>1. The Burn approach: give the worst possible result. >>>2. The Tenerife approach: one trick to defense in all three cases. >> >>I believe that the correct general approach is to "give the worst >>possible result out of the set of results that might have been >>obtained without playing irrationally", which is neither of the >>above, but is, IMO, also reasonable. >Eric, that is the claim law as it stands. So it is. I could just as well have written, "I believe that the correct general approach can be found within the context of the claim law as it stands, and that it too would be reasonable." Am I being asked to defend that statement? > Now define irrational. ! I cannot, and I have said previously that I cannot. I believe that an appropriate definition of "irrational" in our context would necessarily be a "laundry list": "A play is to be considered irrational if: (a)... (b)... (c)..., or..." However, it is not necessary for anyone to produce and defend a complete list for us to be able to debate the merits of including one of its potential individual entries. That is what we have, for the most part, been doing in this thread. I argue that the list should include something to the effect of: "It could not result in taking the number of tricks claimed against any combination of cards in the opponents' hands which are not immediately visible to the claimer." Note that "any combination of cards" means just that; in particular, it does not mean "any combination of cards which have not yet been played". That particular entry would settle the debate in the overruffing case that started the thread. One such entry is already specified in TFLB (L70E): it is irrational to play an opponent to hold a particular card when he has already shown out of the suit of that card, etc. I'd support inclusion of an entry that would make it irrational to play a single suit other than from the top down when trying to cash all of the cards in the suit, but, obviously, that one is still up for debate here. I'm sure there would need to be more. If Grant and/or Herman are intending to suggest that we cannot reasonably debate whether a particular play is or is not irrational in the absense of a complete working definition of "irrational", I respectfully disagree. >Don't go around in circles !!!!! I'd have called it "staying in the circle". The circle in this case is the existing claims laws. I read Steve's post as suggesting that finding a reasonable general approach requires finding another circle, and I disagree with that. My stated position is that the current laws are such that a reasonable approach to adjudicating claims can be found within their context. That doesn't mean that I find the way in which those laws are currently being interpreted and applied to be reasonable, only that they could be made to be so without requiring that they be substantively changed. I am not, moreover, suggesting that the current law couldn't be better worded to make that general approach clearer, or to refine it, or to provide more precise guidelines for applying it, only that we need not abandon it altogether in favor of something else. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 03:25:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17GPS014047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:25:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17GPJH14017 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:25:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF65L6; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:16:13 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020207111253.00a25450@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:15:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207092246.00affaf0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20020206164601-r01010800-f997cb41-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206084741.00af32a0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Am I the only one in this group who routinely states: "Playing ______ from the top down?" Walt Flory ________ At 09:47 AM 2/7/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:44 PM 2/6/02, Ed wrote: > >>How about "Claimer shall state a complete line of play. If he fails to do >>so, TD >>shall rule that he loses any tricks that could be lost on any line of play"? > >Such a rule would solve all of our problems with adjudicating claims, both >legally and practically. It's down side, however, was set forth clearly >by Grant in his recent post in reply to David B. Let's not lose the >forest of making the game better for our players for the tree of making >life easier for our TDs and ACs. > > From the legal perspective, it would provide us with a mechanical process > for adjudicating claims. That would eliminate problems of > interpretation, remove any exercise of judgment from the process, > eliminate the resulting inconsistencies among rulings by different TDs or > ACS, and insure that all contestants were treated equally. Sounds pretty good. > >But the reality, as Grant argues, is that it would solve all our problems >in a much more practical and straightforward way. Once it was in place >long enough for its effects to begin to be felt by bridge players >everywhere, virtually nobody would ever claim. That would sho'nuff solve >all our current problems with adjudicating faulty claims! > >I agree with Grant; it just isn't worth it. I am firmly convinced that if >a player claims the rest of the tricks, implicitly assuming that he can >take five tricks with AKQJ2 opposite 10983, but failing to say so >explicitly, and discovers that he is scored as having lost a trick in the >suit by leading the 2 to the 3, none of the four players present at the >table when the ruling is made will ever attempt to make another claim for >the rest of their lives. I, for one, would rather suffer the occasional >migraine as a TD or AC member from trying to deal with faulty claims under >the current laws than see this happen. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >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 Fri Feb 8 03:27:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17GRb814381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:27:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17GRSH14359 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:27:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF65MA; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:18:23 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020207111633.00a88810@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:17:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020207111253.00a25450@mail.fscv.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207092246.00affaf0@pop.starpower.net> <20020206164601-r01010800-f997cb41-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206084741.00af32a0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk That should, of course, have been: >Am I the only one in this group who routinely states: "Playing ______ from >the top down."? w At 11:15 AM 2/7/02 -0500, Bridge Laws Discussion List wrote: >Am I the only one in this group who routinely states: "Playing ______ from >the top down?" > >Walt Flory >________ > > > >At 09:47 AM 2/7/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>At 04:44 PM 2/6/02, Ed wrote: >> >>>How about "Claimer shall state a complete line of play. If he fails to >>>do so, TD >>>shall rule that he loses any tricks that could be lost on any line of play"? >> >>Such a rule would solve all of our problems with adjudicating claims, >>both legally and practically. It's down side, however, was set forth >>clearly by Grant in his recent post in reply to David B. Let's not lose >>the forest of making the game better for our players for the tree of >>making life easier for our TDs and ACs. >> >> From the legal perspective, it would provide us with a mechanical >> process for adjudicating claims. That would eliminate problems of >> interpretation, remove any exercise of judgment from the process, >> eliminate the resulting inconsistencies among rulings by different TDs >> or ACS, and insure that all contestants were treated equally. Sounds >> pretty good. >> >>But the reality, as Grant argues, is that it would solve all our problems >>in a much more practical and straightforward way. Once it was in place >>long enough for its effects to begin to be felt by bridge players >>everywhere, virtually nobody would ever claim. That would sho'nuff solve >>all our current problems with adjudicating faulty claims! >> >>I agree with Grant; it just isn't worth it. I am firmly convinced that >>if a player claims the rest of the tricks, implicitly assuming that he >>can take five tricks with AKQJ2 opposite 10983, but failing to say so >>explicitly, and discovers that he is scored as having lost a trick in the >>suit by leading the 2 to the 3, none of the four players present at the >>table when the ruling is made will ever attempt to make another claim for >>the rest of their lives. I, for one, would rather suffer the occasional >>migraine as a TD or AC member from trying to deal with faulty claims >>under the current laws than see this happen. >> >> >>Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >>1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >>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 Fri Feb 8 05:23:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17IN0S03479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:23:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17IMoH03444 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:22:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Yt3J-0001iO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:13:46 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:14:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C6234E4.1090705@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:03 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >No Eric, the point that Alain is trying to make is that the claimer >does not think he might be wrong. > >So he will not play an extra round of trump to gather them. > >In fact, we don't know what he will do, because he will always claim. Only the Pope is never wrong about anything. But all of us occasionally think we are not wrong about something in particular when we are. Herman says that "the claimer does not think he might be wrong", but doesn't tell us what he does not think he might be wrong about. So let me restate Herman's position in a bit more detail, in the context of our prototypical three-card ending, with the missing piece filled in: The claimer believes that there is no outstanding small trump. He does not think he might be wrong about this. So there would be no reason in his mind for him to play his trump before his side suit. Therefore, if it does turn out that he is wrong, and there is an outstanding small trump, we must adjudicate his claim as though he had played out the hand without playing his trump before his side suit. So far so good. However: The claimer also believes that there is no outstanding high card in either of his suits. He does not think he might be wrong about this. So there would be no reason in his mind for him to play his side suit before his trump. Therefore, if it does turn out that he is wrong, and there is an outstanding high card in either of his suits, we must adjudicate his claim as though he had played out the hand without playing his side suit before his trump. My point is this: The claimer believes two different things that might matter, and he is sure that he is not wrong about either of them. But in reality, he is wrong about one of them. Is this normal? Is this rational? Is this [fill in whatever particular term you think is appropriate in this context]? One can reasonably believe the answer to be yes. One can reasonably believe the answer to be no. But one cannot reasonably argue that whether the answer is yes or no depends on which of the two things he is wrong about. >And n ow the EBLAC has decided he will cash his suits trumps >last. What's so difficult about that ? Absolutely nothing. Easy as pie. Doesn't make it right. We could write or interpret the laws in such a way that someone who claims without making a proper statement is scored as though he lost all of the remaining tricks. There'd be nothing difficult about that either. >This was a case where discussion was possible, and now some eminent >authority (of which I was part) has decided that the word "normal" has >to be interpreted in this manner. If the whole world would follow >this, we would be closer to agreement. Why continue to discuss this ? This is not the first time that someone on this list has suggested that the pronouncement of an "eminent authority" should perforce end all debate on a subject, but I though we had put that idea to rest a long time ago. This is not a forum in which eminent authorities hand out pronouncements on stone tablets which the rest of us are expected to accept without question; there are other channels of communication for those who are so inclined. If some eminent authority decided that someone making a faulty claim would be deemed to take no more tricks on the hand, or to take no more tricks for the rest of his life, and "the whole world would follow this", we would not only be closer to agreement, we would have achieved it. But we should strive to reach genuine agreements that have a consensual basis, not "agreements" that are imposed on us by fiat. In other words, to answer Herman's final question, when we continue to debate a subject after an eminent authority has pronounced upon it, we do so because we believe the eminent authority to have been wrong. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 05:30:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17IUQb04336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:30:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17IUFH04309 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17IK4l07869; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:20:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020207115622.00a30190@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:21:28 -0600 To: Herman De Wael From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <3C623781.4010009@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:14 AM 2/7/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> When you play up to the AQ, lefty inserts the K and you >>automatically say "Queen", have you taken leave of your senses? >>Are you insane? Less rational then the player who puts up >>the Ace? Why isn't someone who fails to ruff high in the >>case where the forgotten trump is on his right less rational >>the then person who ruffs high? How about the person who >>blocks entries--can't he _see_ that he's going to block >>them? > > >Look, this too has been decided. It is deemed irrational not to overruff. >You can NOT argue this with the lawbook. We need consensus. That's what >this list is for. Please stop using examples about cases where there is >consensus. Then you're missing my point completely, Herman...I must not have explained it adequately. I am called to the table to rule on a claim. In order to rule on it, I must understand what the word 'irrational' means. Every time we get into an argument onb this list about a claim, roughly four different definitions of 'irrational' get kicked about: a) 'irrational' means 'no-one ever does this'. b) 'irrational' means 'totally idiotic or insane'. c) 'irrational' means 'grossly careless'. d) 'irrational' means...well, I know it when I see it. As long as this situation endures, we will have fierce disputes over claims. The only two solutions to this problem that I can see are: 1) for the lawmakers to drop the word 'irrational' entirely and replace it with explicit rules for evaluating claims, either the Burn rule or twenty Tenerife rules or whatever. 2) For the WBFLC to give us an official understanding of what 'irrational' means. What I am claiming will not work is to give us Tenerife rulings but leave the law vague as it now is. Because: A) Most TDs around the world won't ever see the Tenerife precedents, while they might see a law change, B) All Tenerife-rules will produce situations that violate a TD's understanding of 'irrational', [For example, people will in fact sometimes play their last trump rather than side-suit winners, and so if you think 'irrational' means 'it doesn't happen', then you will think Tenerife requires a TD to violate what you think the law is.] C) You'll never get enough Tenerife rules to cover all the cases, and so you'll be left with TDs in one place interpreting 'irrational' in one way, and TDs in another place interpreting it another way. If that doesn't bother you, then you don't _need_ Tenerife rules, and if it does bother you then get rid of 'irrational' and try to give us a complete set of rules. Compare a real legal example. You can write a law that says that a person can be ticketed for drunk driving if alcohol has impaired his performance. If you do that, you must accept that sometimes a policeman [or jury] in city 'A' will ticket you while a policeman or jury in city 'B' would not, even though you were equally impaired. Or you can write the law and say that you will be ticketed if your blood-alcohol level exceeds a certain amount. If you do that, you must accept that sometimes a driver will be obviously impaired and dangerous but his b-a level will fall below the line and he'll go free, whereas another driver may be reasonably safe but be ticketed. But writing the first kind of law and then saying 'and we think you're obviously impaired if you're a male weighing 160 pounds and you've had 4 beers in the last hour' won't work. Sometimes such a male won't seem impaired to the officer or juror, and in any case that doesn't tell them how to rule in the million cases not covered by the law. Do I think it's irrational not to over-ruff? Of course I do. But, then again, _my_ definition of 'irrational' says that. I don't think definitions 'a' or 'b' say that it is irrational, and I don't think that people such as yourself who want to find consensus should be using definition 'd'. Put it another way: I think it would be much more productive to forming consensus to give us a clear idea of what 'irrational' means than to construct _ad hoc_ rules covering irrationality for specific cases. I know few people agree with me on that. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 05:44:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Iia606075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:44:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17IiQH06050 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:44:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17IXtl15520; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:34:00 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:35:25 -0600 To: Herman De Wael From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <3C62386B.7020707@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:18 AM 2/7/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> Of course it is--the claim laws tell the TD to enforce >>equity, and sometimes the Tenerife guideline will produce >>inequitable results. > >How can you say that - we rule the result that any player would have >gotten, how can that be inequitable. Because there will be cases where, as TD, I think that declarer would have screwed up and led his trump, but this doctrine will forbid me from assigning the score for that mistake. Such cases will be terribnly rare, but I'm sure at least one will occur somewhere someday. The same is true with _all_ specific claim-adjudication rules. >We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not to play >"trumps last". That must certainly be a close decision. Now we have tried >to pose a consensus, and you are saying that this can be inequitable >? Please a little more respect for a fine bunch of people. Precisely, because I think that playing trumps last is 'normal' in some circumstances and for some declarers, but is not normal in other circumstances and for other declarers. I am not saying that you are not a fine bunch of people, nor that you have produced an unreasonable rule. I am saying that no rule like this will ever produce the equitable result in all cases, and that your rule is _ad hoc_ and therefore not what I think claim law really needs. I certainly respect you, and I think that given what you're trying to do you've done the best job you could possibly do. >-- >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, [no pun intended] Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 06:12:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17JCPT10918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:12:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17JCGH10895 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:12:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g17J34q04247; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:03:04 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:03:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle asked: > Herman wrote: > We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not > to play "trumps last". That must certainly be a close > decision. Now we have tried to pose a consensus, and you are > saying that this can be inequitable ? Please a little more > respect for a fine bunch of people. > > > DWS wrote earlier: > The EBU has discussed it and does not see this ruling as correct in > the EBU. Their view is that any card might be played - three tricks to > the defence. > > Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? Of course yes! As long as any resolution, guideline or whatever has not been properly published in a region (or area), no TD, AC or NBO in that region/area can be bound by it. Instead they must actually be bound by whatever previous relevant publishing exists. And so far nothing of that kind has been published in Norway, nor as it seems to me from this discussion elsewhere in the world? 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 Feb 8 06:28:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17JRxv13621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:27:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17JRoH13599 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:27:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Yu4D-00004U-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:18:46 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207132639.00afe170@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:17:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C62364F.8070608@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206112515.00af38f0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:09 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >Eric, you have been on this list long enough to know that this >reasoning is simply wrong. The act of claiming is careless, but this >does not turn irrational acts into merely careless ones. I am not saying that it does. What I am saying is that neither does the act of claiming turn merely careless acts into irrational ones. Here we have a player who, had he played the hand out, would have faced a choice between two possible lines of play, either of which could take more tricks than the other, notwithstanding that he may be convinced that it won't make any difference which he chooses. Whichever line he might take, we would not deem him to have played irrationally (he might well, in fact, turn out to have played optimally). It is Herman who argues that if he claims rather than playing it out, we should then arbitrarily find one of those two possble lines, but not the other, to be irrational. I say "arbitrarily" because Herman, while he has made the case, such as it is, for deciding once and for all how declarer will be deemed to have "played out" the hand in adjudication, has advanced no justification whatsoever for selecting side-suit first as the "rational" line and trumps first as the "irrational" line rather than the other way around. Indeed, had Herman's "eminent authority" made the exactly opposite decision, Herman would not need to change a single word of his argument to date to support *that* decision. >Well, and all we are saying is that we have refined the definition of >normal and irrational in this case. Right; all you are saying is that you have refined those definitions. What I don't hear you saying, or at least don't hear you offering a justification for, is that the particular refinement you have chosen was a good idea. I think I might have heard you, however, saying that refinement per se is a good idea, whatever refinements we might choose. I hear and (think I) understand the case for that position; I just don't agree with it. All I am saying is that you have refined the definition of normal and irrational in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent with the normally accepted meaning of those words, and, IMO, ill-advised. >You cannot get out of this discussion by arguing with just the Lawbook. With what else should I argue? If I believe that the pronouncement of some eminent authority is in conflict with the lawbook, where else should I turn for support other than to the words of the lawbook? Must I restrict myself to citing only the pronouncements of other eminent authorities who disagree with the original eminent authorities? If that is what I wanted to do, I would leave the Bridge Laws Mailing List and start up the Bridge Eminent Authorities Mailing List, where we could have arguments that leave the lawbook out of it. >So simply follow the recommendation, why don't you ? Because as it is indeed only a recommendation, I am not obligated by my duties as a TD or AC member to follow it, and I believe it is both inconsistent with the current laws and just plain silly. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 06:48:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17JmO717241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:48:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17JmEH17206 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:48:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17Jcug28669 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:38:56 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62D7E3.4080200@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:39:15 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Eric, it is not symmetrical. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:03 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: > >> No Eric, the point that Alain is trying to make is that the claimer >> does not think he might be wrong. >> >> So he will not play an extra round of trump to gather them. >> >> In fact, we don't know what he will do, because he will always claim. > > > Only the Pope is never wrong about anything. But all of us occasionally > think we are not wrong about something in particular when we are. > Herman says that "the claimer does not think he might be wrong", but > doesn't tell us what he does not think he might be wrong about. > > So let me restate Herman's position in a bit more detail, in the context > of our prototypical three-card ending, with the missing piece filled in: > > The claimer believes that there is no outstanding small trump. He does > not think he might be wrong about this. So there would be no reason in > his mind for him to play his trump before his side suit. Therefore, if > it does turn out that he is wrong, and there is an outstanding small > trump, we must adjudicate his claim as though he had played out the hand > without playing his trump before his side suit. > > So far so good. However: > > The claimer also believes that there is no outstanding high card in > either of his suits. He does not think he might be wrong about this. > So there would be no reason in his mind for him to play his side suit > before his trump. Therefore, if it does turn out that he is wrong, and > there is an outstanding high card in either of his suits, we must > adjudicate his claim as though he had played out the hand without > playing his side suit before his trump. > > My point is this: The claimer believes two different things that might > matter, and he is sure that he is not wrong about either of them. But > in reality, he is wrong about one of them. Is this normal? Is this > rational? Is this [fill in whatever particular term you think is > appropriate in this context]? One can reasonably believe the answer to > be yes. One can reasonably believe the answer to be no. But one cannot > reasonably argue that whether the answer is yes or no depends on which > of the two things he is wrong about. > We have decided, as an AC of a zonal organisation (make of that what you will), that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is high, to play trumps last. You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play trumps first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is uncertain, since he will not be claiming. Well, whether he is wrong about the one or the other, we adjudge that he shall play any suit first, but not trumps. >> And n ow the EBLAC has decided he will cash his suits trumps last. >> What's so difficult about that ? > > > Absolutely nothing. Easy as pie. Doesn't make it right. We could > write or interpret the laws in such a way that someone who claims > without making a proper statement is scored as though he lost all of the > remaining tricks. There'd be nothing difficult about that either. > As said in many other posts, that's just not bridge. I like the example of the player claiming with AKQJ2 opposite T983. As for your "doesn't make it right". We've argued a long time about this normality. I'm saying it's normal, you're not. We can't convince oneanother. So the Laws don't settle this issue. The EBLAC has settled it. >> This was a case where discussion was possible, and now some eminent >> authority (of which I was part) has decided that the word "normal" has >> to be interpreted in this manner. If the whole world would follow >> this, we would be closer to agreement. Why continue to discuss this ? > > > This is not the first time that someone on this list has suggested that > the pronouncement of an "eminent authority" should perforce end all > debate on a subject, but I though we had put that idea to rest a long > time ago. This is not a forum in which eminent authorities hand out > pronouncements on stone tablets which the rest of us are expected to > accept without question; there are other channels of communication for > those who are so inclined. > Well, many people on this list have asked for guidelines as to deciding what is normal and what is not. This is such a guideline. It's jurispudence. Make of it what you will - you're the one living in the country with Common Law - I'm the Napoleonic. > If some eminent authority decided that someone making a faulty claim > would be deemed to take no more tricks on the hand, or to take no more > tricks for the rest of his life, and "the whole world would follow > this", we would not only be closer to agreement, we would have achieved > it. But we should strive to reach genuine agreements that have a > consensual basis, not "agreements" that are imposed on us by fiat. > Which is why we are trying to reach consensus on this one. > In other words, to answer Herman's final question, when we continue to > debate a subject after an eminent authority has pronounced upon it, we > do so because we believe the eminent authority to have been wrong. > But that cannot be the case. It's too close to call. This is not an eminent authority - this is jurisprudence, which could be used as precedence in other cases. You may disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is wrong. The definition of irrational simply will not allow you to prove that this rulilng is wrong. It's a judgment issue, and we're telling you what the judgment in a particular case was. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 8 06:54:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Jsdb18393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:54:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17JsTH18360 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:54:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YuU1-0005co-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:45:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207142528.00b01230@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:45:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C62359C.4010704@village.uunet.be> References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206092827.00af0c00@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:06 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >yes Eric, > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 03:48 AM 2/6/02, Grattan wrote: >> >>If we were to interpret the word "irrational" in TFLB in a way that >>conforms to the normal "dictionary" meaning of the word and stopped >>muddying the waters by worrying about the "class of player involved" >>-- in other words, if we finally stopped pretending that weaker >>bridge players are necessarily less rational than stronger ones -- we >>would quickly come 90%+ of the way towards establishing a consensual >>understanding of "what is 'irrational'" (i.e. what would be >>irrational for anybody, like cashing broken suits from the bottom >>up), and 90%+ of our rulings in these situations would no longer be >>"all about judgement[s] of what is 'irrational'" that differ from one >>committee to the next. Those were my words, not Grattan's. If Herman has reversed my position with Grattan's, as he appears to have done, and believes that I was opposing the position above, then he presumably agrees with me. >Which is exactly what the EBLAC has done : they have establlished a >consensual understanding. No they haven't. They have made a statement. If that statement had reflected an established consensus they wouldn't have had any reason to make it. If they believe that the mere act of making a statement is sufficient to establish a consensus where none existed previously, they must believe not only that they are infallible, but that everyone else in the world recognizes that they are infallible. >This is a case where we can debate blue in the face what is rational >and not (we're doing that right now). Why can't we simply follow a >consensus position ? We cannot follow a consensal understanding without a consensual understanding to follow, and we do not have one. Consensual understandings must be achieved by consensus; they cannot be promulgated, however eminent the promulgating authority might be. If Herman or the EBLAC believes that taking an official position is the same thing as "establish[ing] a consensual understanding", they do not know what the word "consensus" means. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 06:59:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17JxCU19290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:59:12 +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 g17Jx1H19260 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:59:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17Jk1l22015; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:46:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020207133926.00a30940@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:47:21 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207132639.00afe170@pop.starpower.net> References: <3C62364F.8070608@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206112515.00af38f0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 2/7/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:09 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >>Well, and all we are saying is that we have refined the definition of >>normal and irrational in this case. > >Right; all you are saying is that you have refined those >definitions. What I don't hear you saying, or at least don't hear you >offering a justification for, is that the particular refinement you have >chosen was a good idea. I think I might have heard you, however, saying >that refinement per se is a good idea, whatever refinements we might >choose. I hear and (think I) understand the case for that position; I >just don't agree with it. > >All I am saying is that you have refined the definition of normal and >irrational in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent with >the normally accepted meaning of those words, and, IMO, ill-advised. Ah, perfect. Eric and I completely agree on this. If you want to 'refine' the definitions, then you need to either: a) Convince us that your refinement is really the one most consistent with the laws as written, or b) Issue a new interpretation of the law _in general_ that makes your refinement fit, or c) Give up the pretense that you are refining, and just make new supplemental laws _ex nihilo_. >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 07:23:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KN9D24021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:23:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17KMxH23990 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:23:00 +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 g17KDqM29564 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:06:47 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Rationality [was: Basic Claim Principle] To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206174141.00b01b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020207151400-r01010800-284c5daa-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 2/7/02 at 9:13 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > I can't imagine finding a definition of "irrational" by which it > wasn't. Is Grant really suggesting that if you believe that something > doesn't exist, I produce it and show it to you, and you then continue > to persist in your belief that it doesn't exist, this is rational > behavior by any definition? Of course it is. Since the object doesn't exist, whatever you showed me must be something else. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Feb 8 07:41:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KfGv27630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:41:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17Kf7H27602 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:41:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17KVcg18196 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:31:38 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62E43D.5000802@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:31:57 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207115622.00a30190@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 09:14 AM 2/7/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Then you're missing my point completely, Herman...I > must not have explained it adequately. > I am called to the table to rule on a claim. In order > to rule on it, I must understand what the word 'irrational' > means. Every time we get into an argument onb this list > about a claim, roughly four different definitions of > 'irrational' get kicked about: > a) 'irrational' means 'no-one ever does this'. > b) 'irrational' means 'totally idiotic or insane'. > c) 'irrational' means 'grossly careless'. > d) 'irrational' means...well, I know it when I see it. > Well, in 99.99% of cases these definitions will coincide. > As long as this situation endures, we will have > fierce disputes over claims. The only two solutions to this > problem that I can see are: I don't see fierce disputes over claim rulings. I only see fierce disputes between people trying to decide how many angels go on pins. > 1) for the lawmakers to drop the word 'irrational' > entirely and replace it with explicit rules for evaluating > claims, either the Burn rule or twenty Tenerife rules or > whatever. And get rulings as the AKQJ2 - T983 case ? > 2) For the WBFLC to give us an official understanding > of what 'irrational' means. > That's like trying to define what an angel is. > What I am claiming will not work is to give us Tenerife > rulings but leave the law vague as it now is. Because: Well, I don't see any alternative to a Burn-type law. Use a word that does not pose to much of a problem and add a number of decisions to it. Like the ACBL rule that suits are played top-down. > A) Most TDs around the world won't ever see the Tenerife > precedents, while they might see a law change, Well, that is where blml comes in. > B) All Tenerife-rules will produce situations that > violate a TD's understanding of 'irrational', [For example, > people will in fact sometimes play their last trump rather > than side-suit winners, and so if you think 'irrational' > means 'it doesn't happen', then you will think Tenerife > requires a TD to violate what you think the law is.] NONONONONONO. When something is clearly irrational, we don't need a Tenerife-ruling. We only need one when there is doubt. So this B) of yours cannot happen. OK you might think that this is more irrational than normal, but you have to agree that this is close to a border, no ? > C) You'll never get enough Tenerife rules to cover > all the cases, and so you'll be left with TDs in one > place interpreting 'irrational' in one way, and TDs > in another place interpreting it another way. If that > doesn't bother you, then you don't _need_ Tenerife > rules, and if it does bother you then get rid of 'irrational' > and try to give us a complete set of rules. But this is just inevitable! > Compare a real legal example. You can write a law > that says that a person can be ticketed for drunk > driving if alcohol has impaired his performance. If > you do that, you must accept that sometimes a policeman > [or jury] in city 'A' will ticket you while a policeman > or jury in city 'B' would not, even though you were > equally impaired. Or you can write the law and say that > you will be ticketed if your blood-alcohol level exceeds > a certain amount. If you do that, you must accept that > sometimes a driver will be obviously impaired and dangerous > but his b-a level will fall below the line and he'll go free, > whereas another driver may be reasonably safe but be > ticketed. But writing the first kind of law and then > saying 'and we think you're obviously impaired if you're > a male weighing 160 pounds and you've had 4 beers in the > last hour' won't work. Sometimes such a male won't seem > impaired to the officer or juror, and in any case that > doesn't tell them how to rule in the million cases not > covered by the law. As soon as you find a similar way of determining rationality, let us know. Barring that, why do you think the current situation is so bad ? > Do I think it's irrational not to over-ruff? Of > course I do. But, then again, _my_ definition of 'irrational' > says that. I don't think definitions 'a' or 'b' say that > it is irrational, and I don't think that people such as > yourself who want to find consensus should be using > definition 'd'. But there is no consensus here. I believe the Tenerife ruling is correct, according to my understanding of the word normal. You and Ed (that's a small minority) disagree, and I agree that this is possible, not because we are wrong, but because we don't know exactly where to draw the line. Now as a help to all TD's, we have written down our decision. Now it is up to you to change in your mind the place where the line needs to be drawn, or make rulings that would not muster against a background of blml AC members. But don't continue arguing that this "irrational" line is an normal one. You cannot ever win that one. It's far too close to call. > Put it another way: I think it would be much more > productive to forming consensus to give us a clear idea > of what 'irrational' means than to construct _ad hoc_ > rules covering irrationality for specific cases. I know > few people agree with me on that. > Well, please give a definition of "normal" that is like the drunken test. I'm certain we'd welcome such a thing. > >Herman DE WAEL > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > > -- 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 Feb 8 07:45:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KjX428079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:45:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17KjOH28075 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:45:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17KaBg22698 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:36:11 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:36:29 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 09:18 AM 2/7/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Grant Sterling wrote: >> >>> >>> Of course it is--the claim laws tell the TD to enforce >>> equity, and sometimes the Tenerife guideline will produce >>> inequitable results. >> >> >> How can you say that - we rule the result that any player would have >> gotten, how can that be inequitable. > > > Because there will be cases where, as TD, I think that > declarer would have screwed up and led his trump, but this > doctrine will forbid me from assigning the score for that > mistake. Such cases will be terribnly rare, but I'm sure > at least one will occur somewhere someday. The same is > true with _all_ specific claim-adjudication rules. > But Grant, I am quite certain that in that case, the basic principle behind the Tenerife ruling will not be applicable. When you decide, you take everything into account. If you believe that a particular declarer, in a particular case, might play in a particular manner, you are free to rule like that. But a declarer who thinks his hand is high shall play trumps last. The ACBL has a rule - suits are played top-down. Now of course there are cases when a player has a reason not to do so, so in those cases you rule he does not. But the basic premise remains, and you probably follow it. -- 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 Feb 8 07:48:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KlpD28092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:47:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17KlgH28088 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:47:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17KcZg24654 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:38:35 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62E5DD.6040905@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:38:53 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > >> We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not to play >> "trumps last". That must certainly be a close decision. Now we have >> tried to pose a consensus, and you are saying that this can be >> inequitable ? Please a little more respect for a fine bunch of people. > > > Precisely, because I think that playing trumps last > is 'normal' in some circumstances and for some declarers, > but is not normal in other circumstances and for other > declarers. Well, I think the circumstances are well documented. You can surely decide whether they match the particulars of your case. > I am not saying that you are not a fine bunch > of people, nor that you have produced an unreasonable > rule. I am saying that no rule like this will ever produce > the equitable result in all cases, and that your rule is _ad > hoc_ and therefore not what I think claim law really needs. > I certainly respect you, and I think that given what > you're trying to do you've done the best job you could > possibly do. > Maybe you put too much into a "Tenerife rule". There is no such thing. What there is is precedent. I'm sure any American lawyer can tell us what that's worth. Perhaps not a lot, but then again, something is better than nothing at all. >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL > > > Respectfully, [no pun intended] > Grant Sterling > > -- 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 Feb 8 07:50:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Ko8628104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:50:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17Ko0H28100 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:50:01 +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 g17KerM03965 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:40:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:36:50 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207092246.00affaf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020207154101-r01010800-6f1dd4d4-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 9:47 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > Such a rule would solve all of our problems with adjudicating claims, > both legally and practically. It's down side, however, was set forth > clearly by Grant in his recent post in reply to David B. Let's not > lose the forest of making the game better for our players for the tree > of making life easier for our TDs and ACs. Okay. It was just a suggestion. We seemed to be heading in the direction of "how should we change this law". Ordinarily, I try to stay out of those threads, because I'm much more interested in how we should apply the existing law - a point that sometimes seems to get lost here. :-) Guess I got caught up in the moment, or something. 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 Feb 8 07:50:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KolP28116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:50:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17KocH28112 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:50:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17KfTg27528 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:41:29 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:41:47 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? >> > > Of course yes! As long as any resolution, guideline or whatever has > not been properly published in a region (or area), no TD, AC or NBO > in that region/area can be bound by it. Instead they must actually be > bound by whatever previous relevant publishing exists. > > And so far nothing of that kind has been published in Norway, nor > as it seems to me from this discussion elsewhere in the world? > The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. (perhaps excluding the EBU). > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 8 07:56:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17KuhR28128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:56:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17KuYH28124 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:56:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17Kl9g03163 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:47:09 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62E7E0.6070502@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:47:28 +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] References: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This has no bearing on the current discussion, nbut it's interesting nevertheless. Karel wrote: > Hi all - a classic example of the current claims thread .... > > >>S KQJ8x Bidding 1C P 1S DBL >>H Qxx RDBL P P 2D >>D KTx 3C P 4S all pass >>C Ax >> >> Opening lead AD. Heart to ace. C to A. >>S 76x KD, heart away. KS, S9,small,small. >>H AJ TD ruff. Spade to the 8. SJ to ace. >>D x Heart to Q, K. heart back won by west. >>C KQJTxxx >> I am assuming the opening lead went to east's Ace, or why did the HA win the second trick. >> >>At this stage the cards are >> >> S Kx >> H - >> D - >> C x >> >>S T S - >>H x H - >>D x D xx >>C - C x >> >> S - >> H - >> D - >> C KQJ >> >>Declarer now faced his cards claiming -1. The opps called the TD. There was >> > a trump outstanding and they felt declarer had forgotten about it. Td ruled > declarer would ruff the red suit return and play a club to the K allowing the > ST to score for -2. Declarer felt this was ridiculous. He clearly knew the > ST was out and who had it. He was going to ruff the red suit play the SK and > claim. Playing a club to the K was completely illogical. He hadn't stated > a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to need no explanation. > I see no reason to disbelieve that declarer lost track of the trump. He finessed once already and did not have time to draw the remaining trump. I would probably rule for declarer. > > Your call. > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Feb 8 07:59:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Kx8g28140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:59:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17KwxH28136 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:58:59 +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 g17KnqM15255 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:49:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:44:05 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020207155000-r01010800-78df614d-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 2/7/02 at 2:41 PM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > He hadn't stated > a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to need no > explanation. > > > Your call. I don't think the law as it currently stands allows claimer the option to omit a line of play statement on *any* grounds, including "it's blatantly obvious". If he does omit it, then it's the TD's judgement, not the claimer's, as to what is "normal" that counts. Defender gets the trick. 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 Feb 8 08:06:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17L5o328157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:05:50 +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 g17L5fH28153 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:05:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g17KuMr10840; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: <006a01c1b019$e60765c0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:56:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote ....(snip) > The ACBL has a rule - suits are played top-down. Now of > course there are cases when a player has a reason not to do > so, so in those cases you rule he does not. But the basic > premise remains, and you probably follow it. If there is any logic in this rule then I assume they also apply it when declarer demands from dummy a particular suit without naming the rank because with a running suit plus some small cards that is the only rational way to play? Or do they have different rules for claim and play? Sorry Herman, I had decided to abstain from further participation with this thread, but couldn't resist pointing out the inconsequence here. 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 Feb 8 08:07:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17L7KG28169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:07:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17L7BH28165 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:07:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48255.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.127]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g17Kw5g13696 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:58:05 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C62EA6F.6030607@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:58:23 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206111933.00a88ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206112515.00af38f0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207132639.00afe170@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No sorry Eric, you are not correcct: Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:09 AM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: > >> Eric, you have been on this list long enough to know that this >> reasoning is simply wrong. The act of claiming is careless, but this >> does not turn irrational acts into merely careless ones. > > > I am not saying that it does. What I am saying is that neither does the > act of claiming turn merely careless acts into irrational ones. Here we > have a player who, had he played the hand out, would have faced a choice > between two possible lines of play, either of which could take more > tricks than the other, notwithstanding that he may be convinced that it > won't make any difference which he chooses. Whichever line he might > take, we would not deem him to have played irrationally (he might well, > in fact, turn out to have played optimally). It is Herman who argues > that if he claims rather than playing it out, we should then arbitrarily > find one of those two possble lines, but not the other, to be irrational. > > I say "arbitrarily" because Herman, while he has made the case, such as > it is, for deciding once and for all how declarer will be deemed to have > "played out" the hand in adjudication, has advanced no justification > whatsoever for selecting side-suit first as the "rational" line and > trumps first as the "irrational" line rather than the other way around. > Indeed, had Herman's "eminent authority" made the exactly opposite > decision, Herman would not need to change a single word of his argument > to date to support *that* decision. > trumps first is only rational if you are uncertain that there are any out. trumps first is abnormal (*) if you believe they have all gone. I don't think this can be in question. Surely you see that the case is not symmetrical ! (*) I expressly use a non-bridge-word. This statement is true, and the EBLAC has ruled that it is sufficiently abnormal to be judged irrational. >> Well, and all we are saying is that we have refined the definition of >> normal and irrational in this case. > > > Right; all you are saying is that you have refined those definitions. > What I don't hear you saying, or at least don't hear you offering a > justification for, is that the particular refinement you have chosen was > a good idea. I think I might have heard you, however, saying that > refinement per se is a good idea, whatever refinements we might choose. > I hear and (think I) understand the case for that position; I just don't > agree with it. > > All I am saying is that you have refined the definition of normal and > irrational in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent with > the normally accepted meaning of those words, and, IMO, ill-advised. > You've lost me - I'm not going to argue any more. >> You cannot get out of this discussion by arguing with just the Lawbook. > > > With what else should I argue? If I believe that the pronouncement of > some eminent authority is in conflict with the lawbook, where else > should I turn for support other than to the words of the lawbook? Must > I restrict myself to citing only the pronouncements of other eminent > authorities who disagree with the original eminent authorities? If that > is what I wanted to do, I would leave the Bridge Laws Mailing List and > start up the Bridge Eminent Authorities Mailing List, where we could > have arguments that leave the lawbook out of it. > But it cannot be in conflict with the lawbook. The line under consideration is abnormal to say the least. If you don't agree with that - please visit a beginners game some time and see how the game is played when all 13 tricks are played out. The Lawbook does not help us here. Is this line irrational or not. No way are you going to convince me that there can be a way of proving that this is rational or not. I'm not saying that it is, I'm just saying that the lawbook does not tell us - it's to close to the border for that. The EBLAC has issued a ruling and I think it's a good idea to adopt this a precedent. >> So simply follow the recommendation, why don't you ? > > > Because as it is indeed only a recommendation, I am not obligated by my > duties as a TD or AC member to follow it, and I believe it is both > inconsistent with the current laws and just plain silly. > Silly ? I think you are plain silly. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 8 08:08:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17L87g28181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:08:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17L7wH28177 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:07:59 +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 g17KwpM25745 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:58:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:53:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C62D7E3.4080200@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020207155900-r01010800-16023c73-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 8:39 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > The EBLAC has settled it. For the EBL, maybe. Why should EBL rulings be binding on any other ZA? Someone one (I forget who just now) on the ACBL Laws Committee made the flat statement that "the ACBL Laws committee is the final arbiter of the laws". For a long time I thought he meant that the opinions and rulings of the WBF LC (or BoD, or whoever the actual WBF authority is) were irrelevant, that only those of the ACBL LC "count". I've more recently concluded that what he meant was that the ACBL LC is the final arbiter of the laws *in the ACBL*, rather than the ACBL BoD. Better. I don't think the WBF (or the EBL) would appreciate the ACBL LC telling them how to rule. :-) 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 Feb 8 08:17:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17LH8q28197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:17:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17LGtH28193 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:16:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g17L7ig11424; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:07:44 +0100 Message-ID: <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:07:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >>Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? > >> > > > > Of course yes! As long as any resolution, guideline or whatever has > > not been properly published in a region (or area), no TD, AC or NBO > > in that region/area can be bound by it. Instead they must actually be > > bound by whatever previous relevant publishing exists. > > > > And so far nothing of that kind has been published in Norway, nor > > as it seems to me from this discussion elsewhere in the world? > > > > > The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent > to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think > that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, > and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. > (perhaps excluding the EBU). I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. 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 Feb 8 08:34:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17LXqN28211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:33:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17LXiH28207 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:33:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Yw23-0000hR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:24:39 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207150245.00b05c90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:24:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] In-Reply-To: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:41 AM 2/7/02, karel wrote: >Hi all - a classic example of the current claims thread .... > > >S KQJ8x Bidding 1C P 1S DBL > >H Qxx RDBL P P 2D > >D KTx 3C P 4S all pass > >C Ax > > Opening lead AD. Heart to ace. C to A. > >S 76x KD, heart away. KS, S9,small,small. > >H AJ TD ruff. Spade to the 8. SJ to ace. > >D x Heart to Q, K. heart back won by west. > >C KQJTxxx > > > >At this stage the cards are > > > > S Kx > > H - > > D - > > C x > > > >S T S - > >H x H - > >D x D xx > >C - C x > > > > S - > > H - > > D - > > C KQJ > > > >Declarer now faced his cards claiming -1. The opps called the > TD. There was >a trump outstanding and they felt declarer had forgotten about it. Td >ruled >declarer would ruff the red suit return and play a club to the K >allowing the >ST to score for -2. Declarer felt this was ridiculous. He clearly >knew the >ST was out and who had it. He was going to ruff the red suit play the >SK and >claim. Playing a club to the K was completely illogical. He hadn't >stated >a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to >need no explanation. > >Your call. The "Basic Claim Principle" thread is concerned with whether, in the context of Karel's hand, it would be "normal" or "irrational" for declarer to cash the SK before leading to dummy's clubs when he believes that there are no more trumps out. It would be indisputably irrational for declarer to fail to play the SK first when he knows that the S10 is still out. For the TD to award a trick to the defense in this position, the three separate requirements of L70C must be met (given in L70C1-3 respectively). In "Basic Claim Principle" we are discussing cases in which conditions 1 and 2 are stipulated, and we are debating the requirements for meeting condition 3. In Karel's case, condition 1 is met, but declarer argues (a) that condition 2 is not, and (b) that if condition 2 is not, then condition 3 is not either. (b) is a matter of law, and declarer is right about the law, whereas (a) is a matter of fact. As I read the main line of debate in "Basic Claim Principle", both sides would agree that in this case, if condition 2 is met, so is condition 3, notwithstanding that we have been arguing vehemently over the respective merits of the disparate premises from which we would draw the same conclusion. I don't think you'd get any votes at all in favor of it being irrational to fail to play the SK at trick 12 if declarer, for example, had claimed with the statement "trumps are gone". So I don't see a problem of law here. The adjudication of this case rests solely on the point of fact. If we accept declarer's statement that "he clearly know the ST was out and who had it", we give him the rest of the tricks, whereas if we believe that "it is at all likely that [he] at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand", we give a trick to the defense. My call? I don't know; I would have had to have been there. But in a cases like this I would, I admit, start with a strong bias in favor of the defense. It's just too easy for a declarer who knows that the S10 is still out to say something at the time he faces his cards, and any bridge player above the level of rank novice should know that he should do so. Any vaguely relevant statement will do. Had he faced his cards with the statement, "There's still a trump out," I expect we would come to an immediate consensus in favor of allowing his claim. My gut reaction in cases like this is "too bad; if you knew there was a trump still out, why didn't you say so?" And if we find against him this time, he'll know better next time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 09:10:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17M9jx01527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:09:45 +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 g17M9aH01507 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:09:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA18447 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15874 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:00:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:00:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202072200.RAA15874@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I'd have called it "staying in the circle". The circle in this case is > the existing claims laws. I read Steve's post as suggesting that > finding a reasonable general approach requires finding another circle, > and I disagree with that. Sorry if my previous posts were so unclear; I do not believe anything of the sort and never intended to say so. What we need in my view are guidelines -- jurisprudence -- for applying the claim laws we have. I don't think it is possible to cover all cases, but it should be possible to cover most of the common types of cases. If a TD or AC faces an uncommon and difficult case, one approach is to try to see which of the common cases it is most similar to. But difficult cases will always be difficult; no help for that, I'm afraid. All we can do is have guidelines so the difficult cases will be fewer in number. > has advanced no > justification whatsoever for selecting side-suit first as the > "rational" line and trumps first as the "irrational" line rather than > the other way around. There are at least two justifications: "trumps first" conflicts with the explicit L70C as well as longstanding custom and practice. More generally, "trumps last" gives exactly one trick to the defense in all three of Eric's canonical cases, whereas "trumps first" would sometimes give zero and other times two or three. That isn't specifically against the laws, of course, but neither does it seem especially desirable when there's an easy way to avoid it. We could give "worst possible result," which is easy to adjudicate, but as others have said, it is unnecessarily harsh on claimers. > > The ACBL has a rule - suits are played top-down. > From: "Sven Pran" > If there is any logic in this rule then I assume they also apply it > when declarer demands from dummy a particular suit without > naming the rank Why would you assume such a ridiculous thing? Calling a card from dummy is regulated under L45; it has nothing whatever to do with claims (L70). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 09:13:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17MDPc02266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g17MDGH02239 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:13:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g17M46N00931 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:04:06 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202072204.g17M46N00931@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:04:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Fearghal O'Boyle" at Feb 03, 2002 10:35:13 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 Okay, I admit that I've only read about half of the articles in this thread. However, the way that I've ruled for some time and seems to be consistent with other directors both in this area (Washington DC) and along the East Coast seems to be this: If a player makes a claim and does not state a line of play, nor mentions the existence or nonexistence outstanding trump, then they are being "careless" and as such, the director should impose a line of play that is least favorable to the declarer assuming that all such lines are relatively equal. It is assumed that declarer has mentioned all information that (s)he deems important at the time. Any information not having been mentioned is assumed forgotten unless declarer can stipulate something to clarify (e.g. at trick 9, declarer finesses for the second time against a known missing honor, when it wins, declarer tables the hand. It can be assumed that declarer has not forgotten about the missing trump honor, as long as that is the only trump missing, it can be assumed that (s)he has not forgotten it). If the player who was careless (and isn't claiming without mentioning any outstanding trumps and a line of play careless?) disagrees, then (s)he can take it to an appeals committee and explain to the committee why (s)he should be entitled to more tricks. I would give 3 tricks to the defense in Fearghal's example. -Ted. > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:35:13 -0000 > > Spades are trumps. > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > The defenders have a master trump. > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > Correct? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 09:25:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17MP2M04492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:25:02 +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-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 g17MOqH04454 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:24:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.134.114] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YwpU-000AK3-00; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:15:46 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c1b025$5b61d020$7286403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:16:46 -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: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:08 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline > in the 'interim'? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > +=+ I would not describe it as a guideline. I would describe it as a precedent. I reported it factually; I think to become a guideline it would require some refinement. It appeared apposite and fair in the particular case and I have indicated some of the reasons why I think so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 09:26:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17MQ8M04709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:26:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17MPwH04670 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:25:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-39-130.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.39.130] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16YwqW-00052y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:16:49 +0000 Message-ID: <00b701c1b024$e5afcee0$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:15:03 -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 Sven wrote: > > The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent > > to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think > > that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, > > and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. > > (perhaps excluding the EBU). > > I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it > has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's > (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: > I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) > understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. This is somewhat alarming. The EBU L&E committee met recently and concluded that, since the judgement of the appeals committee in Tenerife was the most unmitigated balderdash, it was going to have nothing to do with it and rule declarer three down should the position arise in an English event. But what is being asserted by Herman above is that NBOs are bound to follow this joke "precedent" because it was created by an EBL appeals committee during a European event. Now, in this country we already have enough problems with the notion that we should not be ruled by faceless bureaucrats from Brussels. We already have to use kilograms, whatever they are, and it is reported that but for the staunch and unceasing efforts of our gallant Prime Minister and his noble Chancellor, we would all be paying for half-litres of beer with Monopoly money. If I tell my appeals chairpeople that they are going to have to give crackpot rulings because some committee in a Spanish seaside resort had been hitting the sangria too hard, there is going to be a revolution! David Burn London, ENGLAND (and proud of 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 Fri Feb 8 09:43:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17MhV907816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:43:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17MhMH07796 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:43:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:34:17 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:51:08 -0600 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2002 22:34:17.0954 (UTC) FILETIME=[94310C20:01C1B027] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A half a board procedural penalty for every claim made with no statement would get rid of the whole problem very soon(and probably any bridge club that enforced it.) Maybe directors grumbling very fiercly would do the trick, but not drive the customers away. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 09:50:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Mnvu08875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:49:57 +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 g17MnlH08856 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g17Me4k15422; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:40:05 +0100 Message-ID: <008e01c1b028$63323620$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200202072200.RAA15874@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:40:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In reply to Steve Willner: > We could give "worst possible result," which is easy to adjudicate, but > as others have said, it is unnecessarily harsh on claimers. Exactly why is that harsh on a claimer that has made an unfounded or incomplete claim? It has been the obvious rule in Norway as long as I have known about Bridge, I believe it has been the obvious rule elsewhere in the world as well, and it has the obvioous advantage that a claimer once having been ruled against will be more careful with his claims when he knows that he shall not be heard on any argument that "of course I knew about that trump" or "of course I shall select that alternative line of play" TD and AC should in all such cases say: "Fine, why didn't you say so at first with the claim?" > > > > The ACBL has a rule - suits are played top-down. > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > If there is any logic in this rule then I assume they also apply it > > when declarer demands from dummy a particular suit without > > naming the rank > > Why would you assume such a ridiculous thing? Calling a card from > dummy is regulated under L45; it has nothing whatever to do with claims > (L70). Of course it is ridiculous but I wanted to point out the discrepancy between handling the play of a suit after a claim (not specifically stating the play) and the play from dummy after an incomplete designation of the card. It is ridiculously inconsequent to treat a play that is compulsory under Law 46 when that applies as "irrational" under Law 70 when that applies. Maybe it could get somebody to start thinking if the Teneriffa ruling wasn't a bit ridiculous for a similar reason? Why give a claimer more slack than the declarer receives in other situations where a play is not obvious from what he requests. (Except that it is obvious with the assistance of Law 46). Sorry, I should not get tempted to continue against my own decision, but this thread clearly demonstrates at least that the world has not unanimously accepted that ruling. 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 Feb 8 10:04:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17N48V11125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:04:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17N3xH11102 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:04:00 +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 g17MsqM18351 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:54:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:53:57 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 4:51 PM, HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) wrote: > A half a board procedural penalty for every claim made with no statement > would get rid of the whole problem very soon(and probably any bridge club > that enforced it.) Maybe directors grumbling very fiercly would do the > trick, but not drive the customers away. Um. "When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." - Preface to the North American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. 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 Feb 8 10:09:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17N8qC12025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:08:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17N8hH12001 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:08:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:59:32 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.152.243.19] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <001901c1b002$e4f6fea0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:59:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2002 22:59:32.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[1ACDC5E0:01C1B02B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv has seent me a note. I would guess Marv is right about breakfast being the time for getting together. I will point out that breakfast narrows things if we stay in the Mall. I believe that the hotel restaurants are open, but might be overpowered by [noisy] bridge players. Other than Starbucks and a couple of fast food places which open at about 7am, there is Zuchinni' s which opens at 6:30 and Nicholas at 8. La Madeline opens at 8 except on Sunday. I will email Blaiss about getting meeting times to avoid conflicts with meetings. It would be a good idea to figure out the duration of the gathering to plan for. Any suggestions? What about which day? I would vote for early in the tournament- it might give cause to arrange additional get togethers later in the week. Would it be a good idea to ask the daily bulletin to slip a notice in the issue the day before? The only thing that might resemble an agenda I can think of is writing out a cookbook for organizing get togethers. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 10:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17NC6p12578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:12:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17NBvH12549 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:11:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16YxZ6-0004Ek-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 18:02:52 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 18:03:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C62D7E3.4080200@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:39 PM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >We have decided, as an AC of a zonal organisation (make of that what >you will), that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is high, >to play trumps last. I have no problem with that statement. >You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play trumps >first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is >uncertain, since he will not be claiming. I have said that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is high to play trumps first. Uncertainty has nothing to do with it. It it normal to play trumps first whether one is uncertain or not, just as it is normal to play trumps last whether one is uncertain or not. "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." That means that a play must be either "'normal'" or "irrational". I believe, as Herman does, that it is not irrational to play trumps last, but that is arguable. I also believe, as Herman does not, that it is not irrational to play trumps first, but that too is arguable. What I reject is Herman's implied premise that if we believe that either one of these plays is not irrational, we must perforce conclude that the other is. >Well, whether he is wrong about the one or the other, we adjudge that >he shall play any suit first, but not trumps. That, IMO, is an entirely arbitrary judgment which is inconsistent with the law as it currently stands. The law requires that claimer be deemed to have taken the least successful "normal" line consistent with his claim statement, not that he be deemed to have taken the particular "normal" line which some eminent authority has said he must be deemed to have taken. To justify your judgment in the context of the current law, you must not only show that it is normal to play trumps last, but also that it is irrational not to. You can't dismiss the second requirement by saying that it logically follows from the first; it does not. >As for your "doesn't make it right". We've argued a long time about >this normality. I'm saying it's normal, you're not. We can't convince >oneanother. Not at all. I have never said that it's not normal; it is normal. Herman is saying not only that it is normal to play that way, but also that because is normal to play that way, it is therefore not normal to play any other way. I am saying that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former, indeed, cannot, else the lawbook would be spouting impossible nonsense when it talks about (in L70D, for example) "an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful", or even about (in L70C2) "any normal play". Surely these phrases must mean that it is possible for there to be more than one normal line or play. >So the Laws don't settle this issue. The EBLAC has settled it. The issue, as I see it, is whether calling trumps last "normal" must mean that trumps first is perforce "not normal", and I believe that the Laws do settle this issue. If Herman or the EBLAC wish to put forth a justification consistent with the Laws which leads them to the conclusion that it is irrational to play trumps first, I will be happy to listen to it. But so far, the only alleged justification I have heard is "it is normal to play trumps last", which is true, but irrelevant. There must be an implied second premise in order for the conclusion to follow, and I can find no such premise that is not inconsistent with the laws. >Well, many people on this list have asked for guidelines as to >deciding what is normal and what is not. And we need those, because the law requires us to judge whether any given play in any given situation is or is not normal. But the law not only does not require us make judgments as to which one of the possible plays in any given situation is the *only* normal one, it precludes us from making such judgments in the vast majority of situations. Yet that is exactly what the EBLAC has done: it has taken a situation in which there is more than one normal line of play, and adjudged that one of them is to be considered the only normal line of play. The laws do not permit this. >This is such a guideline. This is a guideline for determining the answer to the wrong question, one which has no basis in the Law. I have no quarrel with the determination that playing trumps last is normal. But that is not the same as a determination that a player who claims without specifying the order in which he will play his suits shall be deemed to play trumps last. That, I argue, violates the Law, which requires that alternative normal lines of play be taken into account. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 8 10:15:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17NFS913186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:15:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g17NFIH13167 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:15:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-021.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.213] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16YxcF-000Mwv-00; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:06:07 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:05:03 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1B02B.E01C06E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Burn'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:05:01 -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 David, You get better and better all the time. Best regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: David Burn [SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: 07 February 2002 22:15 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Sven wrote: > > The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent > > to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think > > that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, > > and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. > > (perhaps excluding the EBU). > > I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it > has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's > (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: > I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) > understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. This is somewhat alarming. The EBU L&E committee met recently and concluded that, since the judgement of the appeals committee in Tenerife was the most unmitigated balderdash, it was going to have nothing to do with it and rule declarer three down should the position arise in an English event. But what is being asserted by Herman above is that NBOs are bound to follow this joke "precedent" because it was created by an EBL appeals committee during a European event. Now, in this country we already have enough problems with the notion that we should not be ruled by faceless bureaucrats from Brussels. We already have to use kilograms, whatever they are, and it is reported that but for the staunch and unceasing efforts of our gallant Prime Minister and his noble Chancellor, we would all be paying for half-litres of beer with Monopoly money. If I tell my appeals chairpeople that they are going to have to give crackpot rulings because some committee in a Spanish seaside resort had been hitting the sangria too hard, there is going to be a revolution! David Burn London, ENGLAND (and proud of 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 10:40:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g17Ndjf17467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:39:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17NdaH17443 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:39:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA22133 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA16007 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:30:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:30:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202072330.SAA16007@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Exactly why is that harsh on a claimer that has made an unfounded > or incomplete claim? Again you are writing about a completely different situation than the rest of us. If a claimer has not mentioned an outstanding trump, I don't think there is any disagreement that we shall (in nearly all cases) rule that he has in fact forgotten the trump. No problem there. The argument is about how to rule once it is determined that a claim is faulty. Should we give claimer the worst possible result or something less harsh? Or specifically, as Eric rightly puts it, should there be a guideline saying that any line of play other than "trumps last" is irrational? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 13:21:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g182K0w18511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:20:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g182JoH18486 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:19:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from kdr600 (r-airlock223.esatclear.ie [194.165.171.223]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA07697 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:10:38 GMT From: "Karel" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] 2 pausing cases Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:18:48 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams vul vs nil Dealer W South S KQ98x Bidding W N E S H 9 1C P 1S P D Axxx 2C P P 2D C ATx 2H P(1) 3H P 4H(2) P P DBL (1) & (2) = pauses all the hands S Jx H T7xx D KJxxx C QJ S T S Axxxx H AQJx H Kxxx D Q D xx C K98xxx C xx S KQ98x H 9 D Axxx C ATx At the end of the hand the TD was called and it was suggested that the final double was based on the pause from North. The TD adjusted the score to 4H-2. N/S appealed. South said he doubled for very specific reasons. These were (1) E/W were willing to play in 2C's originally indicating they did not have the values for game (2) N was marked with exactly 4 hearts on the bidding (3) The only way E/W were going to make 4H was by setting up clubs (4) Given (3) + (2), one forced ruff in the west hand in either spades or diamonds will make 4H's unplayable. (5) Pd's pause if it indicated anything would be a wish to bid 3D's - decreasing the chance of an extra diamond trick (as now E could be short) and infact making the double less attractive. (6) West was clearly pushing on this board. (7) On a spade lead all south really needed was for N to have 4 hearts nothing else. With 4 H's in the N hand drawing trumps AND setting up clubs would be extremely diificult if not impossible for E/W. Your call ------------------------------------------------------ Teams Dealer W, Vul vs nil S Kx W N E S H KQx P 1C 2S DBL D AQxx 3S(1) 3NT P 5C(2) C Axxx P 6C all pass S T S Axxxxx H xxxx H xx Lead small club, 7,small,small. D xxxxx D Kx CQ, K, A 8. C Kx C T8x C, T, J, x claimed conceeding a spade S QJxx H AJTx (1) a psych D x (2) Pause undisputed from 4-6 secs C QJ97 E/W had reserved their rights and now called the TD. They claimed N had bid 6 on the pause. TD ruled Law 16A and changed the result to 5C+1. N/S appealed. South said that he felt he had bid as much in tempo as he could considering the sequence. (1) pd shows a spade stop, he has 4 spades and the opps have 9 between them - impossible (2) (1) indicates one of the opps most likely east has psyched. (3) (2) implies east must have a suit to run to - most likely diamonds (4) N does not have 4 hearts, has 2 spades and with 4/4 in the minors should open 1D => has 5+ clubs and 2/3 diamonds. This analysis fits in with (3) (5) Souths double has implied diamonds which he doesn't have. (6) (1) -> (5) => the 5/4 club fit will play alot better than 3NT. Bid 5C South estimated that logically going through 1-6 took 4-6 seconds. He felt he couldn't possibly have gone any faster. (7) 5C is signoff - it indicates no wish to play in a slam. 4C would be a slam try. Pd's 6C bid was on his own. The pause and subsequent bidding indicated no extras or any wish to be in slam. North bid 6 and got lucky. Your call. As an aside. I observed this incident as a spectator. Before the TD arrived East (a top player) accused North of unethical behaviour and made it quite clear to the surrounding tables that N was in his opinion way out of line. N/S and even W tried to indicate that the incident should not be discussed till the TD arrived. East continued his disparaging remarks for a further 10 seconds. I have seen this particular East and others use this public brow beating tactic on several occasions. It inevitably occurs when they are losing and are trying to upset the opps rythme. Is there any Law which could be applied here to stop this or even penalise this ?? Karel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 15:22:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g184LNC09905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:21:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g184LCH09873 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:21:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g184Cvw17270 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:12:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:08:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <20020206154232-r01010800-fa3c0fa3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <002801c1afad$d9e8cc00$8c84403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002801c1afad$d9e8cc00$8c84403e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002801c1afad$d9e8cc00$8c84403e@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"We have first raised a dust and then > complain we cannot see." > ~ George Berkeley. >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >"Bridge Laws" >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:34 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening > there is no question at all in my mind that any opening bid requirements should be applied to 1st and 2nd seat only. I've just been playing 5-00/hundred and pard opened a favourable 4333 9-count AQJx suit in 3rd. Never mind the auction - if rubber bridge players who play virtually *no* conventions consider this is correct, wtf are the duplicate legislators trying to stop it for? It is clear to me that the regulations should be clear that 3rd seat actions should not be restricted in the same way. and FWIW neither should 4th seat action - since I threw in an unfavourable 1444 14 count in the same rubber so I could have another hand where we might get to game. (same dealer and vulnerability at this form of Chicago). Partner agreed (and he only plays 500 hands a week) > >> On 2/5/02 at 11:15 PM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) >wrote: >> >> If I understand you correctly, if the card doesn't say "we may >> open light, or with a four card major, in third or fourth seat", >> then a passed hand can't use Drury, even if the CC says they >> do. Or does putting Drury on the card disclose that the >> partnership may open light? >> >> Regards, >> >+=+ I would support the argument that putting Drury on the card >forewarns of the possibility of light openers in situations where it >applies. This allows opponents to ask the minimum strength >expected. Change of min suit length is not revealed by it. > (That has nothing to do, of course, with questions to do >with >controlling psychics if such controls are not allowed. Repeated >use to protect psychics comes up against such a regulation if it >exists. Someone has to draw a line separating 'light' from >'psychic', >one opportunity for which lies in disclosure of the partnership >expectation of what is 'light'.) ~ 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/ -- 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 Feb 8 15:24:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g184O1V10386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:24:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g184NqH10362 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:23:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g184Fcw17295 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:15:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:11:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] References: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie>, Karel writes >Hi all - a classic example of the current claims thread .... > >> >>S KQJ8x Bidding 1C P 1S DBL >>H Qxx RDBL P P 2D >>D KTx 3C P 4S all pass >>C Ax >> >> Opening lead AD. Heart to ace. C to A. >>S 76x KD, heart away. KS, S9,small,small. >>H AJ TD ruff. Spade to the 8. SJ to ace. >>D x Heart to Q, K. heart back won by west. >>C KQJTxxx >> >> >>At this stage the cards are >> >> S Kx >> H - >> D - >> C x >> >>S T S - >>H x H - >>D x D xx >>C - C x >> >> S - >> H - >> D - >> C KQJ >> >>Declarer now faced his cards claiming -1. The opps called the TD. There was >a trump outstanding and they felt declarer had forgotten about it. Td ruled >declarer would ruff the red suit return and play a club to the K allowing the >ST to score for -2. Declarer felt this was ridiculous. He clearly knew the >ST was out and who had it. He was going to ruff the red suit play the SK and >claim. Playing a club to the K was completely illogical. He hadn't stated >a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to need no >explanation. > I believe him. Give him the trick. down 1. > >Your call. > >-- >http://www.iol.ie >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Feb 8 15:25:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g184PM110597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:25:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g184PCH10573 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:25:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g184Gww17299 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:16:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:12:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston References: <001901c1b002$e4f6fea0$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 In article , Roger Pewick writes >Marv has seent me a note. > >I would guess Marv is right about breakfast being the time for getting >together. I will point out that breakfast narrows things if we stay >in the Mall. Is breakfast that meal that some people take in the mornings? > I believe that the hotel restaurants are open, but might >be overpowered by [noisy] bridge players. Other than Starbucks and a >couple of fast food places which open at about 7am, there is Zuchinni' >s which opens at 6:30 and Nicholas at 8. La Madeline opens at 8 >except on Sunday. > >I will email Blaiss about getting meeting times to avoid conflicts >with meetings. > >It would be a good idea to figure out the duration of the gathering to >plan for. Any suggestions? What about which day? I would vote for >early in the tournament- it might give cause to arrange additional get >togethers later in the week. > >Would it be a good idea to ask the daily bulletin to slip a notice in >the issue the day before? > >The only thing that might resemble an agenda I can think of is writing >out a cookbook for organizing get togethers. > >regards >roger pewick > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Feb 8 15:27:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g184RKE10952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:27:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g184RBH10923 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:27:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GR75A100.JBB for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:18:01 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-71-65.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.71.65]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0h 26/277153); 08 Feb 2002 14:18:01 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208150729.00bc0008@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:17:53 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Law 25B Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I love getting L25B cases, the players think I'm making it all up. The bidding went North East South West 1C 3D 3H pass 5C pass 5D At this stage South said something along the lines of "Oh, I thought you were asking for aces, can I pass?" . I was called and rolled out L25B1. I said that she could try passing and if West accepted, the bidding would carry on. West immediately said "I'm not going to accept". "Well", says I, "you can go ahead and pass in any case, your partner must pass, but then you're only playing for 40% on the board while the opponents just keep their score." Thereupon, North pipes up "just leave it partner, and I can change it back to clubs" OK I thought, maybe 6C will go off for less than 40%, but of course 6C makes and they are the only pair in the room reaching the slam. Now of course, EW are somewhat upset, so upon reflection I rule the contract back to 5C +1, under L16 (or otherwise). Both sides are reasonably happy, but are the rest of you? Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 18:59:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g187xCR20763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:59:12 +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-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 g187x2H20734 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:59:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.48] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Z5if-000F1j-00; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 07:45:17 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1b075$920ef300$3056e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206092827.00af0c00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207142528.00b01230@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:51:03 -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, February 07, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > >Eric Landau wrote: > > We cannot follow a consensual understanding without > a consensual understanding to follow, and we do not > have one. Consensual understandings must be > achieved by consensus; they cannot be promulgated, > however eminent the promulgating authority might be. > If Herman or the EBLAC believes that taking an official > position is the same thing as "establish[ing] a > consensual understanding", they do not know what > the word "consensus" means. > +=+ Herman speaks for himself, but the EBLAC has not "taken an official position" - it has made a decision in one case, in given circumstances with a certain class of player involved. Further, I have passed comment, here and there during these brief exchanges, concerning my personal opinions. Not everything attributed to me in some of the responses is my own view - some is taken from my reporting of the case and some has been transferred to me from other keyboards than mine. There is evidence in what we read to suggest there is no consensus on blml; elsewhere any consensus is seemingly local (if it exists at all). There is of course always a difference between consensus and authority, the promulgations of which do not always match to consensual opinion where they are received - nor is it requisite they should. :-) ~ 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 Feb 8 19:24:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g188Nh223886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:23:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g188NYH23865 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45945.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.51.121]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g188D0813496 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:13:00 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6388A0.9060208@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:13:20 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <20020207155900-r01010800-16023c73-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 8:39 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > >>The EBLAC has settled it. >> > > For the EBL, maybe. Why should EBL rulings be binding on any other ZA? > Since they are not binding on even the EBL, why should they not have the same standing in other zones ? If a judge in Bush County, Clinton State rules a certain way, cannot a lawyer in Clinton County, Bush State, use this as a precedent ? Of course the other judge will rule according to his own mind, but isn't it a good thing if he decides to go along with his colleague ? We're all looking, here on blml, for guidance. Now when a piece of guidance has surfaced, you want to argue that it is simply wrong ? And because you don't happen to agree, you want to argue against all the others ? Eric, have you read the case ? Would you have ruled differently ? (well, I guess you would have). But do you really believe that this ruling is wrong ? There's wrong and wrong, you should realize. I would never criticize you if you had ruled the other way. I would say I believe otherwise, but your ruling would not be "wrong". The definition of normal is just not clear enough. And I don't mind that. > Someone one (I forget who just now) on the ACBL Laws Committee made the flat > statement that "the ACBL Laws committee is the final arbiter of the laws". For a > long time I thought he meant that the opinions and rulings of the WBF LC (or > BoD, or whoever the actual WBF authority is) were irrelevant, that only those of > the ACBL LC "count". I've more recently concluded that what he meant was that > the ACBL LC is the final arbiter of the laws *in the ACBL*, rather than the ACBL > BoD. Better. I don't think the WBF (or the EBL) would appreciate the ACBL LC > telling them how to rule. :-) > No-one is suggesting 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 8 19:40:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g188eXe26924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g188eKH26882 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:40:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45945.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.51.121]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g188US826889 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:30:28 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C638CB9.60701@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:30:49 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 02:39 PM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: > >> We have decided, as an AC of a zonal organisation (make of that what >> you will), that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is high, >> to play trumps last. > > > I have no problem with that statement. > >> You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play trumps >> first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is >> uncertain, since he will not be claiming. > > > I have said that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is high > to play trumps first. Uncertainty has nothing to do with it. It it > normal to play trumps first whether one is uncertain or not, just as it > is normal to play trumps last whether one is uncertain or not. > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not > irrational." That means that a play must be either "'normal'" or > "irrational". I believe, as Herman does, that it is not irrational to > play trumps last, but that is arguable. I also believe, as Herman does > not, that it is not irrational to play trumps first, but that too is > arguable. What I reject is Herman's implied premise that if we believe > that either one of these plays is not irrational, we must perforce > conclude that the other is. > I have never said that. Read my statement again : >> You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play trumps >> first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is >> uncertain, since he will not be claiming. I have always said that I do NOT consider it normal, if one is certain, to play trumps first. No-one does this !!! And of course you cannot prove it, because no-one actually plays them out, except a beginner. Something not even a beginner does, cannot be called normal, by any stretch of the imagination. >> Well, whether he is wrong about the one or the other, we adjudge that >> he shall play any suit first, but not trumps. > > > That, IMO, is an entirely arbitrary judgment which is inconsistent with > the law as it currently stands. The law requires that claimer be deemed > to have taken the least successful "normal" line consistent with his > claim statement, not that he be deemed to have taken the particular > "normal" line which some eminent authority has said he must be deemed to > have taken. To justify your judgment in the context of the current law, > you must not only show that it is normal to play trumps last, but also > that it is irrational not to. You can't dismiss the second requirement > by saying that it logically follows from the first; it does not. > You are saying nothing that I have not said. I just say that it is not normal for someone to play trumps first. Yes, that is judgment, but it has nothing with the laws, just with your warped definition of irrational. The EBLAC has delivered a verdict which says that your definition of irrational is not a correct one. Don't try and turn corners implying that I don't know what the laws say. >> As for your "doesn't make it right". We've argued a long time about >> this normality. I'm saying it's normal, you're not. We can't convince >> oneanother. > And that is not the point of the discussion. What is the point of the discussion is that by the EBLAC decision, an eminent body has state where it thinks the line is. Individual TD's are allowed to follow this advice or not. If they follow it, they will be ruling like a mainstream TD will. You're still trying to say that the rulling is wrong, becasuse you alone have the correct interpretation of the word "irrational". Well that is simply wrong. > > Not at all. I have never said that it's not normal; it is normal. > Herman is saying not only that it is normal to play that way, but also > that because is normal to play that way, it is therefore not normal to > play any other way. I am saying that the latter does not necessarily > follow from the former, indeed, cannot, else the lawbook would be > spouting impossible nonsense when it talks about (in L70D, for example) > "an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful", or > even about (in L70C2) "any normal play". Surely these phrases must mean > that it is possible for there to be more than one normal line or play. > Please don't put arguments in my mouth that if I have stated them, you should know that is not my meaning. For once and for all: I (and the EBLAC) consider it irrational to play trumps first if one knows all his cards to be high. >> So the Laws don't settle this issue. The EBLAC has settled it. > > > The issue, as I see it, is whether calling trumps last "normal" must > mean that trumps first is perforce "not normal", and I believe that the > Laws do settle this issue. If Herman or the EBLAC wish to put forth a > justification consistent with the Laws which leads them to the > conclusion that it is irrational to play trumps first, I will be happy > to listen to it. But so far, the only alleged justification I have > heard is "it is normal to play trumps last", which is true, but > irrelevant. There must be an implied second premise in order for the > conclusion to follow, and I can find no such premise that is not > inconsistent with the laws. > Well, consider that justification given. >> Well, many people on this list have asked for guidelines as to >> deciding what is normal and what is not. > > > And we need those, because the law requires us to judge whether any > given play in any given situation is or is not normal. But the law not > only does not require us make judgments as to which one of the possible > plays in any given situation is the *only* normal one, it precludes us > from making such judgments in the vast majority of situations. Yet that > is exactly what the EBLAC has done: it has taken a situation in which > there is more than one normal line of play, and adjudged that one of > them is to be considered the only normal line of play. The laws do not > permit this. > The laws do permit to calling a line "not normal". It is you who says that equates to "irrational", and it is you who says that this line is not irrational, therefore normal. Read the footnote again. Normal is defined as including a number of adjectives, but not one other. To me that suggests that there is a range of normality, and a line somewhere. We're just searching where the line is. >> This is such a guideline. > > > This is a guideline for determining the answer to the wrong question, > one which has no basis in the Law. I have no quarrel with the > determination that playing trumps last is normal. But that is not the > same as a determination that a player who claims without specifying the > order in which he will play his suits shall be deemed to play trumps > last. That, I argue, violates the Law, which requires that alternative > normal lines of play be taken into account. > Can you not understand that we are using shorthand. "The normal thing to do" may not be synonymous to "anything else is irrational", but it was certainly meant that way. Besides, no use trying to justify now why you have been worming all through. This is the first time you have used these arguments, and, while they are certainly correct, they are easily countered. We did not mean what you ascribe to us. When Alain tried to help us along by stating that it is only rational for a player to draw trumps first, if he is uncertain about it, it was because you kept insisting that some people do indeed play turmps first. But that is not the situation that we are considering. No-one, in this situation, will play trumps first. If that is not one possible definition of a non-normal play, then I don't know what is. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 8 19:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g188fO727078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:41:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g188fCH27053 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:41:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45945.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.51.121]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g188Vr828087 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:31:53 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C638D0C.9020606@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:32:12 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:41 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? >>>> >>>> >>>Of course yes! As long as any resolution, guideline or whatever has >>>not been properly published in a region (or area), no TD, AC or NBO >>>in that region/area can be bound by it. Instead they must actually be >>>bound by whatever previous relevant publishing exists. >>> >>>And so far nothing of that kind has been published in Norway, nor >>>as it seems to me from this discussion elsewhere in the world? >>> >>> >> >>The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent >>to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think >>that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, >>and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. >>(perhaps excluding the EBU). >> > > I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it > has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's > (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: > I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) > understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. > Well, that is the fault of the Norwegian Federation, isn't it ? > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 8 19:46:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g188kY428092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:46:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g188kOH28061 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:46:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45945.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.51.121]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g188ax802471 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:36:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C638E40.7070206@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:37:20 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <00b701c1b024$e5afcee0$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >>>The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent >>>to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think >>>that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, >>>and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. >>>(perhaps excluding the EBU). >>> >>I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it >>has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's >>(nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: >>I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) >>understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. >> > > This is somewhat alarming. The EBU L&E committee met recently and > concluded that, since the judgement of the appeals committee in Tenerife > was the most unmitigated balderdash, it was going to have nothing to do > with it and rule declarer three down should the position arise in an > English event. But what is being asserted by Herman above is that NBOs > are bound to follow this joke "precedent" because it was created by an > EBL appeals committee during a European event. > > Now, in this country we already have enough problems with the notion > that we should not be ruled by faceless bureaucrats from Brussels. We > already have to use kilograms, whatever they are, and it is reported > that but for the staunch and unceasing efforts of our gallant Prime > Minister and his noble Chancellor, we would all be paying for > half-litres of beer with Monopoly money. If I tell my appeals > chairpeople that they are going to have to give crackpot rulings because > some committee in a Spanish seaside resort had been hitting the sangria > too hard, there is going to be a revolution! > I strongly object to the words "faceless bureacrats from Brussels". This ruling was reached by a joint decision of four people, all Europeans. The fact that one of them was in fact English should not be mentioned, but I will do so anyway. Petty arguments like that one can go down the drain very easily : "Why should you, as a Londoner, accept what has been decided by a Liverpudlian ?". What's the difference ? I always hate it when the English start speaking about federalism. They are living in the only true Federal country in Europe, but we never hear the Scots (or the English, for that matter) complain about faceless bureaucrats from Whitehall, do we ? > David Burn > London, ENGLAND (and proud of it!) > Herman De Wael, Valaar, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium, EU, Europe and the World, and proud of them all !!! > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 8 19:49:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g188nZ128524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:49:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g188nQH28505 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:49:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45945.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.51.121]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g188eA805042 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:40:10 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C638EFE.3050003@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:40:30 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202072200.RAA15874@cfa183.harvard.edu> <008e01c1b028$63323620$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > In reply to Steve Willner: > >>We could give "worst possible result," which is easy to adjudicate, but >>as others have said, it is unnecessarily harsh on claimers. >> > > Exactly why is that harsh on a claimer that has made an unfounded > or incomplete claim? It has been the obvious rule in Norway as long > as I have known about Bridge, I believe it has been the obvious > rule elsewhere in the world as well, and it has the obvioous advantage > that a claimer once having been ruled against will be more careful > with his claims when he knows that he shall not be heard on any > argument that "of course I knew about that trump" or "of course > I shall select that alternative line of play" > No it has not been the rule, in Norway or anywhere else. "Worst line unless stated" would give a trick away from AKQJ2 - T983. That is not the rule. The rule includes something about irrationality and normality, it always has, and it always will. > TD and AC should in all such cases say: "Fine, why didn't you say > so at first with the claim?" > "Why did you not say that you would not play the 3 on the 2" "duh ?" > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 8 20:05:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1894aF00732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:04:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1894RH00705 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:04:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h77.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.77]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g188tH4T023256; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:55:18 +0300 Message-ID: <38725C26.A6D7560C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:46:30 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Am reading all the posts with interest. Dare to react on Eric's message. Eric Landau wrote: > > Only the Pope is never wrong about anything. I felt oligations to make two remarks: 1. The Pope is sinless - not "never wrong" 2. He is sinless not always but ONLY when he speaks from EX-CATHEDRA and ONLY in questions of FAITH (both conditions should be fulfilled simuntaneously). So - neither "never", nor "wrong" were right words. And as a conclusion - not right statement, sorry:) Regards, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 20:15:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g189Ed302399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:14:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g189ESH02370 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:14:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g18955820092; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:05:05 +0100 Message-ID: <006001c1b07f$b479c960$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C638D0C.9020606@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:05:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" .....(snip) > > I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it > > has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's > > (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: > > I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) > > understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. > > > > > Well, that is the fault of the Norwegian Federation, isn't it ? I have a strong feeling it is not "the fault" of the Norwegian Federation, but it is the judgement of the Norwegian Federation that they at present do not want this change of practice in Norway on such loose and debatable foundations. And if I have understood the various entries in this thread correct, Norway is not alone in that view. Note: I am not speaking on behalf of the Norwegian Federation in any way, just referring the signals we (as TD) receive and don't receive. 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 Feb 8 21:38:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18AbcA18825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:37:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18AbTH18793 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:37:30 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g18ASG414942; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:16 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:28:16 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g18ASGh28385; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:16 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:28:16 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10767; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:15 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA25970; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:15 GMT Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:15 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202081028.KAA25970@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ardelm@bigpond.net.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I love getting L25B cases, the players think I'm making it all up. > > The bidding went > North East South West > 1C 3D 3H pass > 5C pass 5D > > At this stage South said something along the lines of "Oh, I thought you > were asking for aces, can I pass?" . I was called and rolled out L25B1. > I said that she could try passing and if West accepted, the bidding would > carry on. West immediately said "I'm not going to accept". > > "Well", says I, "you can go ahead and pass in any case, your partner must > pass, but then you're only playing for 40% on the board while the opponents > just keep their score." I think the correct reading of L25B is that South can choose to substitute another call (e.g. Pass); if South does so and West does not accept it then South may let the first call (5D) stand and North must pass, or South may make any other legal call (e.g. Pass) and the auction proceeds normally, but NS get at most average minus. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 8 22:39:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18BdO400838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 22:39:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18BdEH00813 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 22:39:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45162.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.48.106]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g18BTJ827519 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:29:20 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C63B6A3.50407@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:29:39 +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: "blml >> Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <3C638CB9.60701@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 While mulling it over, I stumbled on an argument that might just resolve my dispute with Eric. Eric says that playing trumps first is not irrational. I say that playing trumps last is "normal" (not the law sense of the word). Maybe we are both right. And maybe that is not important. The footnote says : normal includes careless, inferior but not irrational. nothing is said about rational lines. If the Lawmakers had intended to exclude only irrational lines, they should have said normal = rational. May we perhaps conclude that there are lines that are rational, but are not to be considered normal (bridge sense). Lines that no-one effectively plays, even though they are rational. Examples could include playing sequences bottom-up, and this playing trumps first It's not irrational, but that's not the same as saying it's normal. Herman De Wael wrote: > > > The laws do permit to calling a line "not normal". It is you who says > that equates to "irrational", and it is you who says that this line is > not irrational, therefore normal. Read the footnote again. Normal is > defined as including a number of adjectives, but not one other. To me > that suggests that there is a range of normality, and a line somewhere. > We're just searching where the line is. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 00:32:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18DVdd23517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:31:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18DVTH23486 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:31:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZAyt-00010d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 08:22:23 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208081139.00b009e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 08:22:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <006a01c1b019$e60765c0$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@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 03:56 PM 2/7/02, Sven wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote > > > The ACBL has a rule - suits are played top-down. Now of > > course there are cases when a player has a reason not to do > > so, so in those cases you rule he does not. But the basic > > premise remains, and you probably follow it. > >If there is any logic in this rule then I assume they also apply it >when declarer demands from dummy a particular suit without >naming the rank because with a running suit plus some small >cards that is the only rational way to play? > >Or do they have different rules for claim and play? No, what they have, in effect, is different rules for situations in which declarer is trying to cash a suit and other situations. If dummy, on lead, holds H-AK32 and declarer says "heart", he is deemed to have called for the 2 (L46B2), but if he says "cash a heart" he is deemed to have called for the A (L46B1). When he claims, either stating or implying that he expects to run a suit, it is deemed that he will be "cashing" the suit, and he is therefore assumed to do so from the top down. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 00:48:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18DmUX26824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:48:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18DmKH26786 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:48:21 +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 OAA24973; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:36:23 +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 OAA08970; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:39:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208142939.00a6a320@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:39:59 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Rationality [was: Basic Claim Principle] In-Reply-To: <20020207151400-r01010800-284c5daa-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020206174141.00b01b60@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:06 7/02/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 2/7/02 at 9:13 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > > > I can't imagine finding a definition of "irrational" by which it > > wasn't. Is Grant really suggesting that if you believe that something > > doesn't exist, I produce it and show it to you, and you then continue > > to persist in your belief that it doesn't exist, this is rational > > behavior by any definition? > >Of course it is. Since the object doesn't exist, whatever you showed me >must be >something else. :-) AG : of course. I don't bvelieve in telepathy. Thus, if two people claim they're using telepathy,and succeed in a test, it must be a con. For role-players, this is called an attepmpt at disbelieving. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 00:58:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Dvsc28731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18DvbH28684 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:57:39 +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 OAA12432; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:47:51 +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 OAA18687; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:48:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208144451.00a640f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:51:53 +0100 To: "Karel" , "blml" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 pausing cases In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g18DvfH28695 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:18 8/02/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Teams vul vs nil Dealer W > >South >S KQ98x Bidding W N E S >H 9 1C P 1S P >D Axxx 2C P P 2D >C ATx 2H P(1) 3H P > 4H(2) P P DBL > > (1) & (2) = pauses > >all the hands > > S Jx > H T7xx > D KJxxx > C QJ >S T S Axxxx >H AQJx H Kxxx >D Q D xx >C K98xxx C xx > S KQ98x > H 9 > D Axxx > C ATx > >At the end of the hand the TD was called and it was suggested that the final >double was based on the pause from North. The TD adjusted the score to >4H-2. N/S appealed. > >South said he doubled for very specific reasons. These were > >(1) E/W were willing to play in 2C's originally indicating they did not >have the values for game >(2) N was marked with exactly 4 hearts on the bidding >(3) The only way E/W were going to make 4H was by setting up clubs >(4) Given (3) + (2), one forced ruff in the west hand in either spades or >diamonds will make 4H's unplayable. >(5) Pd's pause if it indicated anything would be a wish to bid 3D's - >decreasing the chance of an extra diamond trick (as now E could be short) >and infact making the double less attractive. >(6) West was clearly pushing on this board. >(7) On a spade lead all south really needed was for N to have 4 hearts >nothing else. With 4 H's in the N hand drawing trumps AND setting up clubs >would be extremely diificult if not impossible for E/W. > >Your call AG : this is very clever from South. However, he is not allowed to be very clever after the pause. Adjust and notify the right of appeal. BTW, it is possible for East to have 5 hearts, voiding the whole reasoning. > ------------------------------------------------------ > >Teams Dealer W, Vul vs nil > > S Kx W N E S > H KQx P 1C 2S DBL > D AQxx 3S(1) 3NT P 5C(2) > C Axxx P 6C all pass > >S T S Axxxxx >H xxxx H xx Lead small club, 7,small,small. >D xxxxx D Kx CQ, K, A 8. >C Kx C T8x C, T, J, x > claimed conceeding a spade > S QJxx > H AJTx (1) a psych > D x (2) Pause undisputed from 4-6 secs > C QJ97 > >E/W had reserved their rights and now called the TD. They claimed N had bid >6 on the pause. TD ruled Law 16A and changed the result to 5C+1. N/S >appealed. > >South said that he felt he had bid as much in tempo as he could considering >the sequence. >(1) pd shows a spade stop, he has 4 spades and the opps have 9 between >them - impossible >(2) (1) indicates one of the opps most likely east has psyched. >(3) (2) implies east must have a suit to run to - most likely diamonds >(4) N does not have 4 hearts, has 2 spades and with 4/4 in the minors should >open 1D => has 5+ clubs and 2/3 diamonds. This analysis fits in with (3) >(5) Souths double has implied diamonds which he doesn't have. >(6) (1) -> (5) => the 5/4 club fit will play alot better than 3NT. Bid 5C > >South estimated that logically going through 1-6 took 4-6 seconds. He felt >he couldn't possibly have gone any faster. > >(7) 5C is signoff - it indicates no wish to play in a slam. 4C would be a >slam try. Pd's 6C bid was on his own. The pause and subsequent bidding >indicated no extras or any wish to be in slam. North bid 6 and got lucky. AG : the situation is intricated enough to allow for South's pause. But this is not what has to be judged. What we have to judge is whether this pause induced North to bid 6C. Pause + 5C might be stronger than 5C ; it might not be weaker. Since 4C is stronger than 5C, the 5C bid means in fact 4½. Thus, the 6C bid could be suggested by the tempo. But it's a close case. South committed the classical error of defending himself, while the only possible offender was North. That ... 5C has suggested 6C for the wrong reason is irrelevant, according to former threads ; it did suggest it. Best regards, Alain. >Your call. > > > >As an aside. I observed this incident as a spectator. Before the TD >arrived East (a top player) accused North of unethical behaviour and made it >quite clear to the surrounding tables that N was in his opinion way out of >line. N/S and even W tried to indicate that the incident should not be >discussed till the TD arrived. East continued his disparaging remarks for a >further 10 seconds. > >I have seen this particular East and others use this public brow beating >tactic on several occasions. It inevitably occurs when they are losing and >are trying to upset the opps rythme. Is there any Law which could be >applied here to stop this or even penalise this ?? > >Karel > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 01:19:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18EJFd02770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:19:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18EJ6H02752 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:19:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZBix-0000z6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:10:00 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:10:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202072200.RAA15874@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:00 PM 2/7/02, Steve wrote: >There are at least two justifications: "trumps first" conflicts with >the explicit L70C as well as longstanding custom and practice. More >generally, "trumps last" gives exactly one trick to the defense in all >three of Eric's canonical cases, whereas "trumps first" would sometimes >give zero and other times two or three. That isn't specifically >against the laws, of course, but neither does it seem especially >desirable when there's an easy way to avoid it. > >We could give "worst possible result," which is easy to adjudicate, but >as others have said, it is unnecessarily harsh on claimers. What the law, as currently written, tells us to give is the worst result achievable by any "normal" (i.e. not irrational, per the dreaded footnote) line of play. Steve sets forth two premises. The first, "'trumps first' conflicts with the explicit L70C", is precisely the subject of debate. It conflicts with L70C if and only if it is an "irrational" play. Herman, for example, believes that it is; I believe that it is not. Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken three tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your ear, "Trumps are out and my spades are high, but it's understood that nobody ever claims here." As she is whispering to you, she puts the S9 on the table and an opponent follows with a low trump. She then cashes her two spades, and scores up her game. The challenge is to explain to her why she has played irrationally. If anyone can do so convincingly (neither she nor I would accept "because such-and-such eminent authority says so"), I am prepared to accept that "'turmps first' conflicts with... L70C" and give up the fight. Steve's second premise, "'trumps first' conflicts with... longstanding custom and practice" is simply not true where I play. Please see yesterday's post by Ted Ying, who directs regularly in our area, in which he describes in detail how we routinely deal with such cases. So after a day of furious debate, we can bring everything down to a simple yes-or-no question: When the player in my scenario put the S9 on the table, was she making an irrational play? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 01:27:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18EQuk04061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:26:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18EQmH04039 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:26:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZBqP-0002za-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:17:41 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208091240.00b05b70@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:18:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <00b701c1b024$e5afcee0$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:15 PM 2/7/02, David wrote: >Sven wrote: > > > > The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent > > > to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think > > > that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, > > > and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. > > > (perhaps excluding the EBU). > > > > I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it > > has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's > > (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: > > I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) > > understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. > >This is somewhat alarming. The EBU L&E committee met recently and >concluded that, since the judgement of the appeals committee in Tenerife >was the most unmitigated balderdash, it was going to have nothing to do >with it and rule declarer three down should the position arise in an >English event. But what is being asserted by Herman above is that NBOs >are bound to follow this joke "precedent" because it was created by an >EBL appeals committee during a European event. I, and, I expect, others of us who agree with David, are relieved to learn that there are also "eminent authorities" who have come in on our side of the debate. (I've noticed that any time there's an issue worthy of debate, there always seem to be "eminent authorities" to support both sides.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 01:35:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18EYhE05434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:34:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18EYYH05418 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:34:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-39-57.dial.btopenworld.com ([213.122.39.57] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZBxq-0005hK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: <025501c1b0ac$326aad40$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208081139.00b009e0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:22:29 -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 On occasions like this, I always recall with some amusement an assurance by Ton Kooijman during my early days on BLML that claims were easy, and did not cause any problems. They should be easier still now that we have a precedent for dealing with a type of case in which a man claims tricks he hasn't got, and then wants to hang on to as many of them as he might have got had he not been an idiot. But is this progress? Not really. You see, half the people on this list (which we may assume to be a representative cross-section of bridge administration across the world) thinks that what the EBLAC did in Tenerife was sensible, and should at once be made the subject of a Papal encyclical. The other half thinks it was absurd, and should at once be recycled as lavatory paper. What no one seems to have appreciated is that this would also be the case *even if the Tenerife AC had done the exact opposite of what it in fact did*. It follows from the above that, given the current state of the Laws on claims, it is never going to be possible to arrive at a position in which everyone agrees on their interpretation. It is not productive, as seems to be happening at the moment, either for people to go around calling one another silly, or for people to say "Well, our interpretation must be the right one because our Dad is bigger than your Dad". Now, either: The Laws stay as they are, and the WBFLC tells us what they mean (and then we all shut up and get on with implementing them); or The Laws change so that we all know what they mean without anyone having to tell us (and then there would be nothing to go on, or indeed shut up, about). As some of you may be aware, my preference would be for the latter alternative. But the former would also be acceptable. The fact that a thread called "Basic Claim Principle" - and indeed, that title *ought* not to have been a misnomer - can generate so much heat and so little light among a lot of people who are not incompetent in matters of bridge law, is really no more than a serious indictment of the state of the Law itself. 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 Feb 9 01:45:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Ejge07450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:45:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18EjXH07431 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:45:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-49097.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.63.201]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g18EaIu18492 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:36:18 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:36:37 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 05:00 PM 2/7/02, Steve wrote: > >> There are at least two justifications: "trumps first" conflicts with >> the explicit L70C as well as longstanding custom and practice. More >> generally, "trumps last" gives exactly one trick to the defense in all >> three of Eric's canonical cases, whereas "trumps first" would sometimes >> give zero and other times two or three. That isn't specifically >> against the laws, of course, but neither does it seem especially >> desirable when there's an easy way to avoid it. >> >> We could give "worst possible result," which is easy to adjudicate, but >> as others have said, it is unnecessarily harsh on claimers. > > > What the law, as currently written, tells us to give is the worst result > achievable by any "normal" (i.e. not irrational, per the dreaded > footnote) line of play. > > Steve sets forth two premises. The first, "'trumps first' conflicts > with the explicit L70C", is precisely the subject of debate. It > conflicts with L70C if and only if it is an "irrational" play. Herman, > for example, believes that it is; I believe that it is not. > > Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind > someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken three > tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your > ear, "Trumps are out and my spades are high, but it's understood that > nobody ever claims here." As she is whispering to you, she puts the S9 > on the table and an opponent follows with a low trump. She then cashes > her two spades, and scores up her game. The challenge is to explain to > her why she has played irrationally. If anyone can do so convincingly > (neither she nor I would accept "because such-and-such eminent authority > says so"), I am prepared to accept that "'turmps first' conflicts > with... L70C" and give up the fight. > Now if this were a real life scenario, you might have a point. but do you really believe this player would play trumps first ? Don't say that it's rational, do you really believe it is ever done ? That's our point. Read my other mail. Rationality does not equate with normal. > Steve's second premise, "'trumps first' conflicts with... longstanding > custom and practice" is simply not true where I play. Please see > yesterday's post by Ted Ying, who directs regularly in our area, in > which he describes in detail how we routinely deal with such cases. > Well, you also routinely rule that suits are played top-down - what's so rational about that ? > So after a day of furious debate, we can bring everything down to a > simple yes-or-no question: When the player in my scenario put the S9 on > the table, was she making an irrational play? > Sorry, no can do - the question is not whether such play is rational, but whether it is normal. I don't believe this will ever happen, thus I don't think it is normal. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 9 02:30:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18FU5c16388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 02:30:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18FTuH16357 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 02:29:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZCpV-00039r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:20:49 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208094559.00b02bf0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:21:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 pausing cases In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:18 PM 2/7/02, Karel wrote: >Teams vul vs nil Dealer W > >South >S KQ98x Bidding W N E S >H 9 1C P 1S P >D Axxx 2C P P 2D >C ATx 2H P(1) 3H P > 4H(2) P P DBL > > (1) & (2) = pauses > >all the hands > > S Jx > H T7xx > D KJxxx > C QJ >S T S Axxxx >H AQJx H Kxxx >D Q D xx >C K98xxx C xx > S KQ98x > H 9 > D Axxx > C ATx > >At the end of the hand the TD was called and it was suggested that the >final >double was based on the pause from North. The TD adjusted the score to >4H-2. N/S appealed. > >South said he doubled for very specific reasons. These were > >(1) E/W were willing to play in 2C's originally indicating they did not >have the values for game >(2) N was marked with exactly 4 hearts on the bidding >(3) The only way E/W were going to make 4H was by setting up clubs >(4) Given (3) + (2), one forced ruff in the west hand in either spades or >diamonds will make 4H's unplayable. >(5) Pd's pause if it indicated anything would be a wish to bid 3D's - >decreasing the chance of an extra diamond trick (as now E could be short) >and infact making the double less attractive. >(6) West was clearly pushing on this board. >(7) On a spade lead all south really needed was for N to have 4 hearts >nothing else. With 4 H's in the N hand drawing trumps AND setting up >clubs >would be extremely diificult if not impossible for E/W. > >Your call Table score stands. South's argument convinces me to allow the double. In particular, his point #5 seems correct and relevant, and would be enough by itself to convince me to let the double stand. >Teams Dealer W, Vul vs nil > > S Kx W N E S > H KQx P 1C 2S DBL > D AQxx 3S(1) 3NT P 5C(2) > C Axxx P 6C all pass > >S T S Axxxxx >H xxxx H xx Lead small club, 7,small,small. >D xxxxx D Kx CQ, K, A 8. >C Kx C T8x C, T, J, x > claimed conceeding a spade > S QJxx > H AJTx (1) a psych > D x (2) Pause undisputed from 4-6 secs > C QJ97 > >E/W had reserved their rights and now called the TD. They claimed N >had bid >6 on the pause. TD ruled Law 16A and changed the result to 5C+1. N/S >appealed. > >South said that he felt he had bid as much in tempo as he could >considering >the sequence. >(1) pd shows a spade stop, he has 4 spades and the opps have 9 between >them - impossible >(2) (1) indicates one of the opps most likely east has psyched. >(3) (2) implies east must have a suit to run to - most likely diamonds >(4) N does not have 4 hearts, has 2 spades and with 4/4 in the minors >should >open 1D => has 5+ clubs and 2/3 diamonds. This analysis fits in with (3) >(5) Souths double has implied diamonds which he doesn't have. >(6) (1) -> (5) => the 5/4 club fit will play alot better than 3NT. Bid 5C > >South estimated that logically going through 1-6 took 4-6 seconds. He >felt >he couldn't possibly have gone any faster. > >(7) 5C is signoff - it indicates no wish to play in a slam. 4C would be a >slam try. Pd's 6C bid was on his own. The pause and subsequent bidding >indicated no extras or any wish to be in slam. North bid 6 and got lucky. > >Your call. This one is much closer. The presumptive break in tempo by S strongly suggests that he is heavy for his 5C signoff, and makes N's 6C bid more attractive. But N argues, in effect, that there was no break in tempo, and I sympathize. Situations like this are currently the subject of some debate in the ACBL. Rich Colker, the ACBL's National Recorder, has been making the case that it is unrealistic to expect players to bid in an unvarying tempo. In particular, a moderately long huddle that would clearly generate UI in normal, common auctions should not be considered to do so in complex high-level or competitive auctions, or when it's clear that the auction is likely to be one that the player has never faced before; a player must be allowed extra time to think about the bidding in situations where it should be obvious to everyone at the table that he needs it, without creating a presumption of UI. This view has gained some, but far from universal, acceptance in ACBL jurisprudence. >As an aside. I observed this incident as a spectator. Before the TD >arrived East (a top player) accused North of unethical behaviour and >made it >quite clear to the surrounding tables that N was in his opinion way out of >line. N/S and even W tried to indicate that the incident should not be >discussed till the TD arrived. East continued his disparaging remarks >for a >further 10 seconds. > >I have seen this particular East and others use this public brow beating >tactic on several occasions. It inevitably occurs when they are >losing and >are trying to upset the opps rythme. Is there any Law which could be >applied here to stop this or even penalise this ?? Absolutely positively yes. E has violated several laws: L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, and, from the sound of it, probably L74B5 as well. The director's power to penalize these offenses is explicit in L90A and L91A, and he should use it. And if that doesn't work, L91B. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 02:40:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18FeU018342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 02:40:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18FeLH18320 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 02:40:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-43-118.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.43.118] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZCzH-00054A-00; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:30:56 +0000 Message-ID: <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:28:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: [I have amended Eric's scenario below to what I hope was intended - I could not quite make sense of the original] > > Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind > > someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken three > > tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your > > ear, "Trumps are out and my hearts are high, but it's understood that > > nobody ever claims here." As she is whispering to you, she puts the S9 > > on the table and an opponent follows with a low trump. She then cashes > > her two hearts, and scores up her game. The challenge is to explain to > > her why she has played irrationally. If anyone can do so convincingly > > (neither she nor I would accept "because such-and-such eminent authority > > says so"), I am prepared to accept that "'trumps first' conflicts > > with... L70C" and give up the fight. > > Now if this were a real life scenario, you might have a > point. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? It looks very much from the above as though just perhaps, they can. > but do you really believe this player would play > trumps first ? > Don't say that it's rational, do you really believe it is > ever done ? > That's our point. > Read my other mail. Rationality does not equate with normal. Unfortunately, in this context it does, because that is what the Laws say and what Eric, with admirable patience in the face of unwarranted hostility, has been trying to point out. The Law says: "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational. Now, here is a definition of "normal". It is not a very good definition, it is not a definition that would be supported by any English dictionary. But it is a definition within a specific context, and it is a defintion for practical purposes. What it says is: that which is not rational is not normal. What that implies is: that which is normal is rational. Or, in terms of the propositional calculus, if q is irrational, then q is not normal; contrapositively, if q is normal, then q is rational. What Herman is doing is understandable, but fallacious. His argument above is that "trumps first" is not normal because no one would do it. That is probably true, and we will grant that it is always true. But that does not matter, for we are *not* using "that which people would sometimes do" as a definition of "normal". Instead, we are using - and must continue to use throughout - that definition of "normal" that appears in the footnote to the Laws. By *that* definition, rationality does indeed equate with normality, as I have shown above. Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not rational. > I don't believe this will ever happen, thus I don't think it > is normal. Herman is using the word "normal" in its broad, English sense to say: this action is not normal because no one would ever do it. But he may not reason thus, because that is not a definition of the word "normal" that the Laws permit us to use. 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 Feb 9 03:16:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18GGP724325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:16:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (mailhost.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18GGFH24294 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:16:16 +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 RAA12300; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:06:29 +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 RAA08576; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:07:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208170604.00a81240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 17:10:31 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <025501c1b0ac$326aad40$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208081139.00b009e0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:22 8/02/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Not really. You see, half the people on this list (which we may assume >to be a representative cross-section of bridge administration across the >world) thinks that what the EBLAC did in Tenerife was sensible, and >should at once be made the subject of a Papal encyclical. The other half >thinks it was absurd, and should at once be recycled as lavatory paper. AG : a third segment thinks that those two are not mutually exclusive, ie one possible use of papal encyclicals is to serve as lavatory paper. This would least have one advantage : reconcilating blmlists. FETBF. >The Laws stay as they are, and the WBFLC tells us what they mean (and >then we all shut up and get on with implementing them); or >The Laws change so that we all know what they mean without anyone having >to tell us (and then there would be nothing to go on, or indeed shut up, >about). > >As some of you may be aware, my preference would be for the latter >alternative. But the former would also be acceptable. The fact that a >thread called "Basic Claim Principle" - and indeed, that title *ought* >not to have been a misnomer - can generate so much heat and so little >light among a lot of people who are not incompetent in matters of bridge >law, is really no more than a serious indictment of the state of the Law >itself. AG : Echoes my thoughts. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 03:46:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18GiXp29230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:44:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18GiOH29212 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:44:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-187-46.btinternet.com ([213.1.187.46] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZDzR-0004aD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:35:09 +0000 Message-ID: <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:33:03 -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 I wrote a message, sent it in haste because I had to go out for half an hour, then had the unpleasant experience of completely disagreeing with myself during the journey. Oh, well - they say walking is good for the brain. If only I had one. My own thinking is now sufficiently confused that I will merely attempt to put Herman's case, as opposed to Eric's, in the terms I used in my earlier message. I will then reflect, and would enjoin others to do the same. > "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not > irrational. > > Now, here is a definition of "normal". It is not a very good definition, > it is not a definition that would be supported by any English > dictionary. But it is a definition within a specific context, and it is > a defintion for practical purposes. What it says is: that which is not > rational is not normal. What that implies is: that which is normal is > rational. Or, in terms of the propositional calculus, if q is > irrational, then q is not normal; contrapositively, if q is normal, then > q is rational. [snip] > Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that > this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational > actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves > open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it > does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not > rational. The implications of this are that there may be rational actions that are not normal. If, in the context of the Laws, an action is deemed abnormal, then its rationality does not have to be considered - it may simply be ignored as a possible line of play, even though it may be a rational one. Let us replace the word "normal" as used in the footnote by some other word, to make clear the fact that we are using a term specific to the Laws of bridge and independent of its meaning in the English language. Unfortunately, there is no word that I can call to mind in the English language that will completely serve our purpose, so we will borrow one from Lewis Carroll. And let us use the word "normal" in one of its English senses: "that which is usually done". Let us, then, say that a "frabjous" line of play may be "normal, or careless, or inferior... but not irrational". Now, the Laws enjoin us to consider only frabjous lines of play - a claimer is deemed not to follow any line that is not frabjous. Abnormal lines are by definition not frabjous, so the question of whether or not they are rational does not arise - they are simply not considered as possible lines on the basis of which a score may be assigned. Eric, it seems to me, considers that all rational lines are normal. But Herman does not think that this is what the Law says. He thinks that a director or a committee may reject as a basis for score assignment a line that is considered abnormal, even though it would not be considered irrational. He may very well be right. David Burn On the road to Damascus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 04:02:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18H1p602300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:01:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18H1hH02273 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:01:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA03511 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA22259 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202081652.LAA22259@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Eric says that playing trumps first is not irrational. > I say that playing trumps last is "normal" (not the law > sense of the word). Sorry, Herman, won't do. David B. points out why not. Regardless of the words we use, we must classify any proposed play as either "normal" (with a rather unusual definition) or "irrational." The question is which category "trumps first" falls into. > From: Eric Landau > Steve sets forth two premises. The first, "'trumps first' conflicts > with the explicit L70C", is precisely the subject of debate. Not in the case where declarer's error was overlooking a small trump. We shall all rule "one trick to defense" in that case. > Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind > someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken N > tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your > ear, "Trumps are out and my hearts are high, but it's understood that > nobody ever claims here." [I have substituted 'hearts' for Eric's 'spades' in the obvious place and 'N' for Eric's 'three' to generalize the discussion.] OK, Eric, this is a great example. Imagine your friend is suddenly taken ill, and you are asked to play out the hand. Which suit do you play first? Let's assume you are playing for high stakes, so you actually give the matter a little thought, and consider that your friend might have been mistaken. If declarer is correct, any play is equally good. Playing trumps first if there is a high trump out will lose three tricks. If a high heart is out, it will lose two tricks. If a low trump is out, then trumps first will take the rest. If you play hearts first, you will lose exactly one trick no matter which mistake declarer has made. I hope we all agree that the plays are different, and there is a basis for calling one normal and the other irrational, even if we don't agree on the conclusion. In my view, if N<3, hearts first will guarantee the contract. At least at quantitative scoring, that seems to make trumps first irrational. If N=3, I think things are much harder and depend on the form of scoring and probably on the past history of the hand. If N>3, it again looks as though trumps first will usually be irrational, although I can imagine cases where the opposite is true. > From: "David Burn" > The fact that a > thread called "Basic Claim Principle" - and indeed, that title *ought* > not to have been a misnomer - can generate so much heat and so little > light among a lot of people who are not incompetent in matters of bridge > law, is really no more than a serious indictment of the state of the Law > itself. I fear this is the only thing of which we can all be certain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 04:16:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18HGLw04629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:16:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18HGBH04605 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:16:12 +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 SAA07708; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:04:14 +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 SAA23114; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:07:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208180140.00a852f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:10:26 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@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 15:28 8/02/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that >this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational >actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves >open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it >does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not >rational. AG : I do agree. There are, in fact, rational actions that are not normal (in the mundane sense), even at bridge. Bidding 6 whenever you think you've got a fair chance to make 6 is perfectly rational ; in modern bridge, for better or worse, it is not normal : the normal thing to do, apart from some cases where tactics must be taken into account, is to check for sources of tricks, controls, aces and the like. The footnote to LL69-71 doesn't say explicitly whether you've to consider the possibility of a non-normal but non-irrational play. If such a thing does exist -and Herman claims it does- , then said footnote is ambiguous. >Herman is using the word "normal" in its broad, English sense to say: >this action is not normal because no one would ever do it. But he may >not reason thus, because that is not a definition of the word "normal" >that the Laws permit us to use. AG : but it's the one we'd like to use. YT, at least, would. Afterthought : if "normal" means "everything that's not irrational", why didn't the lawmakers simply write "not irrational" in the body of those laws ? 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 Feb 9 04:21:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18HLas05591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:21:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18HLSH05575 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:21:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA04536 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA22299 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:12:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:12:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202081712.MAA22299@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Let us, then, say that a "frabjous" line of play may be "normal, or > careless, or inferior... but not irrational". Now, the Laws enjoin us to > consider only frabjous lines of play - a claimer is deemed not to follow > any line that is not frabjous. Abnormal lines are by definition not > frabjous, Sorry, David, but I'm afraid that last sentence won't do. The Laws enjoin us to place a play in one of two categories: "irrational" or "something else" -- frabjous is as good a word as any. A play that is inferior or careless may well be abnormal for a particular player, but the footnote instructs us to treat it as frabjous as long as the play isn't irrational. The question is where to draw the line. I _think_ we are agreed that from AKQJ2 opposite T983, playing the two low cards on the first round is irrational. I think we also agree that from AK932 opposite QT54, playing the queen first is frabjous, although there are some who think it should be irrational for a sufficiently good player. Agreement is clearly absent in many other cases. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 05:06:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18I5sc12283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:05:54 +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 g18I5iH12265 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:05:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g18HuWV23926 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:56:32 +0100 Message-ID: <007601c1b0c9$f119cec0$09cb049b@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:56:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have often seen the advantage of going back in history to investigate how a rule has evolved over time, pretty often that makes one understand what is the real intention of that rule. So I went back in my archives and found (Law 41a of 1935): If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement as to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not voluntarily made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to do so, and thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be settled as this opponent directs. The corresponding text in the 1949 laws was (in Law 89): ..... The Director determines the result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant's opponents. ..... Can there be any doubt that the major ruling was intended be in favour of opponents, and that the intention of latter introduction of the term "irrational" has not been to protect the claimer from his own possible forgetness or sloppyness but from opponents requesting a directly insane play, for instance the deuce first from a suit like AKQJT2 on the ground that he did not explicitly state his intention to play the suit from top? We have come too far when the discussion is whether "trump first" or "trump last" is irrational within the meaning of the current laws. If there is a reason to modify the laws into giving more latitude to the claimer, fine, then argue such a change in the laws. But my impression is that what is going on now is plain old-fahioned twisting of the rules. 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 Feb 9 05:10:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18I9x012767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:09:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18I9nH12744 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:09:50 +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 g18I0hV12852 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:00:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c1b0ca$824c37c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200202081712.MAA22299@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:59:49 -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 From: "Steve Willner" > The question is where to draw the line. I _think_ we are agreed that > from AKQJ2 opposite T983, playing the two low cards on the first round > is irrational. I think we also agree that from AK932 opposite QT54, > playing the queen first is frabjous, although there are some who think > it should be irrational for a sufficiently good player. > Those people should come up with methods for establishing (1) the level of playing ability for all contestants, and (2) a database of card combinations that provides for each one an ability threshold above which it would never be played incorrectly. Lacking (1), all players in an event should be considered to have equal playing ability. Lacking (2), the threshold for a given card combination should be set very high. 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 Feb 9 05:18:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18IIcC14334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:18:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18IILH14303 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:18:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18I98L14194; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:09:08 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020208113355.00a41ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:10:36 -0600 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020208180140.00a852f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@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 06:10 PM 2/8/02 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 15:28 8/02/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >>Herman is using the word "normal" in its broad, English sense to say: >>this action is not normal because no one would ever do it. But he may >>not reason thus, because that is not a definition of the word "normal" >>that the Laws permit us to use. > >AG : but it's the one we'd like to use. YT, at least, would. I hope not. If you really mean _never_ done, then since all sorts of horrid monstrosities have been done at least once, the result would be that claimer would get the worst of all lines, including lines that involve playing low from both hands, lines that involve revokes, lines that involve being stricken with diarrhea and throwing one's cards all face up on the table, etc. But if you mean 'not _typically_ done', then I see no reason why that definition should be the preferred one to use. Players with nine cards in a suit [including hand and dummy] including the AK do not _typically_ attempt a finesse... do you wish to rule that claimer will always play for the drop in such cases? This seems too nice to claimer. >Afterthought : if "normal" means "everything that's not irrational", why >didn't the lawmakers simply write "not irrational" in the body of those laws ? Because they don't mean "irrational", they mean "slithig"? :) "Irrational" sometimes means [in ordinary usage, in my experience]: a) Insane. b) Really stupid. [Grossly careless or inferior.] c) Inferior. [I have heard people on numerous occasions use 'rational' as equivalent to 'optimal', and 'irrational' as 'sub-optimal'.] It never, in ordinary usage, means d) 'atypical' or even e) 'never done'. [In my experience.] If the lawmakers had just said 'normal', then this would have been too lenient on claimers, since slightly inferior but atypical ['normal' in its ordinary sense] lines would never be considered. OTOH, some people would have thought that 'normal' was supposed to mean 'legal', which would have been too harsh on claimers. So I think it was right of the lawmakers to try to clarify by setting boundries: 'normal' includes careless or inferior plays, but doesn't extend so far as to include irrational ones. The problem we're having is that the way the law is written we need to know _all_ lines that are included, and for practical purposes this means that we need to know what lines are _excluded_. [Also, 'normal' includes careless or inferior lines, but not _just_ careless or inferior lines, while apparently only irrational lines are excluded.] And that means we need to know which usage of 'irrational' the lawmakers had in mind: a, b, c, d or e above, or something else. If the lawmakers had just said 'not irrational', then we would have no idea which of these definitions of 'irrational' was intended. The law as written tells us that 'c' is out. But that leaves 'a' [the usual reading of the Burn school], 'b' [my reading], and 'd/e' [the reading of those who think that 'irrational' means 'abnormal' [ordinary sense]. The WBFLC would perform a wondrous service for us all if they'd just sit down and clarify this. {Herman and the Tenerifeans seem to think that it means 'd' or 'e'.} >Best regards, > > Alain. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 05:46:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18IjhN17551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:45:43 +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 g18IjYH17525 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:45:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-26-141.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.26.141] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZFso-0000Oq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:36:26 +0000 Message-ID: <02ae01c1b0cf$443aaf20$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:34:00 -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 Still reflecting - but I thought I would outline the problem in the terms to which I have reduced it for my own purposes, in the hope that others may see more clearly than I. > > "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not > > irrational. This gives the proposition: [0] No play is both normal and irrational. Or, what is the same thing: [1] If a play is normal, then it is rational. I will draw a parallel here with the similar proposition: [2] If a thing is a cucumber, then it is green. This parallel may help to understand what follows. We assume that the propositions [1] and [2] above are "necessarily true", which I will abbreviate to N. I use the term in the sense given by Leibniz: a proposition is "necessarily true" if it is true in all possible worlds. In the context of the odd-numbered propositions under discussion, there is only one "possible world": the universe of discourse created by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. If the Laws or the makers of the Laws say a proposition is true, then it is N. In the context of the even-numbered propositions, I have had a particular cucumber in my fridge for long enough to disprove the assertion that [2] is N - but we will assume that [2] is N for the moment! Now, all propositions of this type have three variants (which are also propositions): an inverse, a converse, and a contrapositive. The inverses of the above propositions are, respectively: [3] If a play is rational, then it is normal. [4] If a thing is green, then it is a cucumber. As can be seen from [4] above, the inverse of a proposition is not N, even if the proposition itself is N (obviously [4] is not only not N, but false). But, even though [3] is not N, it may nevertheless be true. Whether or not [3] is true will depend on the meanings of "rational" and "normal" within the universe of discourse (and is the crucial question on which some "eminent authority" will at some stage have to pronounce - though Herman and Grattan may consider the pronouncement already made by the EBL AC in Tenerife, which declared [3] to be false). The converses of [1] and [2] are, respectively: [5] If a play is not normal, then it is not rational. [6] If a thing is not a cucumber, then it is not green. Again, as can be seen from [6] above (which is obviously false), the converse of a proposition that is N is not N, though it may be true depending on context. [5] may or may not be true - but if the "eminent authority" pronounces that [3] is true, thus making it N, [5] will also be N, since it is the contrapositive of [3] (see below). The contrapositives of [1] and [2] are, respectively: [7] If a play is not rational, then it is not normal. [8] If a thing is not green, then it is not a cucumber. As can be seen from [8] above, the contrapositive of a proposition that is N is also N (except in my fridge). [7] above is thus also N, though this is not likely to be of much use to appeals committees. In terms of the foregoing, Eric has argued that [3] above is true; Herman has argued (and was a member of the AC that pronounced) that [3] above is false. I say only that the question of the truth value of [3] is what must be determined by the WBFLC, for I do not know it at present. That was hard work. I need a sandwich. Now, where was that cucumber? 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 Feb 9 05:51:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Iotq18375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:50:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18IofH18328 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:50:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18IfDL24124; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:41:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020208121152.00a3e010@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:42:40 -0600 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@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 04:33 PM 2/8/02 +0000, David Burn wrote: > > Now, here is a definition of "normal". It is not a very good >definition, > > it is not a definition that would be supported by any English > > dictionary. But it is a definition within a specific context, and it >is > > a defintion for practical purposes. What it says is: that which is not > > rational is not normal. What that implies is: that which is normal is > > rational. Or, in terms of the propositional calculus, if q is > > irrational, then q is not normal; contrapositively, if q is normal, >then > > q is rational. > >[snip] > > > Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that > > this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational > > actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves > > open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it > > does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not > > rational. > >The implications of this are that there may be rational actions that are >not normal. If, in the context of the Laws, an action is deemed >abnormal, then its rationality does not have to be considered - it may >simply be ignored as a possible line of play, even though it may be a >rational one. I agree. Unfortunately, the _only_ category of actions that we are told is 'abnormal' are the irrational ones. So for any given line of play, we must determine if it is rational or not. If it is irrational, then we exclude it. If it is rational...then we don't know what to do with it unless it is careless or inferior, in which case we're told it's 'in'. Could there be 'rational, non-careless/inferior, abnormal actions'? Possibly, but the law doesn't give us the least guidance as to what they could be. So for practical purposes, we interpret the law as 'not normal if and only if irrational'. This means that we can either define 'normal', and accept whatever result pops out for 'irrational' [even if it's linguistically unrecognizable, and so they should have said 'slithig'], or we can define 'irrational', and accept whatever definition of 'normal' comes out, even if it turns out they should have said 'frabjous', or we can try to find ordinary definitions of both 'normal' and 'irrational' that can fit coherently into the equation at the same time. In this case, using the ordinary definition of 'normal' will produce an utterly unrecognizable meaning for irrational, since I have claimed that 'irrational' is not actually used to mean 'not typical'. OTOH, if we plug in the 'insane' definition for 'irrational', we get the result that all non-insane actions are 'normal', and no-one uses 'normal' that way. Plugging in 'never done' for irrational will tell us that all actions that have ever been done are normal, which is absurd on linguistic or on adjudicational grounds. {Of course, _I_ think that plugging in 'really stupid, grossly careless' for 'irrational' will give us commonly accepted results for both 'irrational' and 'normal'. FWIW.} >Let us replace the word "normal" as used in the footnote by some other >word, to make clear the fact that we are using a term specific to the >Laws of bridge and independent of its meaning in the English language. >Unfortunately, there is no word that I can call to mind in the English >language that will completely serve our purpose, so we will borrow one >from Lewis Carroll. And let us use the word "normal" in one of its >English senses: "that which is usually done". > >Let us, then, say that a "frabjous" line of play may be "normal, or >careless, or inferior... but not irrational". Now, the Laws enjoin us to >consider only frabjous lines of play - a claimer is deemed not to follow >any line that is not frabjous. Abnormal lines are by definition not >frabjous, so the question of whether or not they are rational does not >arise - they are simply not considered as possible lines on the basis of >which a score may be assigned. Non sequitur. Even if 'Frabjous' plays are normal _or_ careless _or_ inferior', some abnormal plays are frabjous. And, further, the law does not say that 'frabjous' plays are all and only normal, careless, or inferior plays, and hence the law nowhere says that there could not be a frabjous play that was neither 'normal', nor 'careless' nor 'inferior'. But, more seriously, if we replace 'normal' in the laws with 'frabjous', then the word 'normal' _no longer appears anywhere in this law_. Where did you, or Herman, get the idea that 'normal' plays are frabjous? Finally, Eric's point is that even if we accept that all normal plays are frabjous, this does us no good unless we know that all abnormal plays are non-frabjous. But the only known non-frabjous plays are the irrational ones. >Eric, it seems to me, considers that all rational lines are normal. But >Herman does not think that this is what the Law says. He thinks that a >director or a committee may reject as a basis for score assignment a >line that is considered abnormal, even though it would not be considered >irrational. He may very well be right. It is linguistically possible that Herman is right, yes. That is, the law as written does not say that irrational plays are the only non-frabjous plays, and so it is possible to argue that rational abnormal plays are non-frabjous, too. But this gives us the odd result that rational, abnormal _inferior_ plays are frabjous, but some abnormal, rational, non-inferior plays are non-frabjous. That, at the very least, seems extremely peculiar. >David Burn >On the road to Damascus Get back on the road...it's just a mirage. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 05:58:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18IwSr19678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:58:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (al21.minfod.com [207.227.70.21] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18IwBH19629 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 05:58:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1Q1G7Y2L>; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:51:43 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:51:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Tony Musgrove >I love getting L25B cases, the players think I'm making it all up. >The bidding went > North East South West > 1C 3D 3H pass > 5C pass 5D >At this stage South said something along the lines of "Oh, I thought you >were asking >for aces, can I pass?" . I was called and rolled out L25B1. I said >that >she could >try passing and if West accepted, the bidding would carry on. West >immediately >said "I'm not going to accept". "Well", says I, "you can go ahead and >pass >in any >case, your partner must pass, but then you're only playing for 40% on >the board >while the opponents just keep their score." >Thereupon, North pipes up "just leave it partner, and I can change it >back >to clubs" >OK I thought, maybe 6C will go off for less than 40%, but of course 6C >makes and they >are the only pair in the room reaching the slam. >Now of course, EW are somewhat upset, so upon reflection I rule the >contract >back to 5C +1, under L16 (or otherwise). Both sides are reasonably >happy, but >are the rest of you? >Tony (Sydney) Apparently South decided to leave the original bid in place. As I read L25B2 if South leave the original call then North must pass. At best they should get 40% on the board. So, they get the lesser of 40% or 5C+1. The comments by North and South both contain such blatant UI that unless they are very new players (in which case much education is in order) I would award them a PP in addition to limiting their result. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 06:57:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18JuYL00819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 06:56:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18JuPH00797 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 06:56:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:47:19 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:04:11 -0600 To: Ed Reppert , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2002 19:47:19.0706 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4377A0:01C1B0D9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On 2/7/02 at 4:51 PM, HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) wrote: > >> A half a board procedural penalty for every claim made with no statement >> would get rid of the whole problem very soon(and probably any bridge club >> that enforced it.) Maybe directors grumbling very fiercly would do the >> trick, but not drive the customers away. > >Um. "When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied >at once >by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will >jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only >seldom." - >Preface to the North American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge, >1997. > > > >Regards, > >Ed OK. Limit Director to no more than two penalties per session, like ACBL psychs. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 07:31:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18KVED07341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:31:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18KV6H07315 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:31:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA02613 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:21:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA22624 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:21:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:21:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202082021.PAA22624@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > This gives the proposition: > > [0] No play is both normal and irrational. I think part of your difficulty may be the difference between a proposition and a definition. As you say, a proposition's being true does not necessarily make its converse and inverse true. For a definition, however, the definition, converse, and inverse are all true or false together. That is, a definition contains an implicit "if and only if." For example, a bid is _sufficient_ if and only if it is above any prior bid (defining 'sufficient'). What the lawmakers have given us is a dichotomy: for purposes of L70, every play must be either "normal" or "irrational" but not both. It doesn't help that the words used are not a pair that are normally considered opposites, but the task before us is to figure out how to tell whether a given play is in one category or the other. We have a few clues: many kinds of carelessness are considered "normal." There are some specific rules about trumps and finesses. There is a WBFLC interpretation to the effect that "class of player" matters. There are various examples of precedent, not all of which we all approve. There are various SO/NBO guidelines. And after that, we are on our own. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 08:00:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Kxlu11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:59:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18KxbH11760 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:59:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZHyY-0004Kt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:50:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:47:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C638CB9.60701@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:30 AM 2/8/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 02:39 PM 2/7/02, Herman wrote: >> >>>We have decided, as an AC of a zonal organisation (make of that what >>>you will), that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is >>>high, to play trumps last. >> >>I have no problem with that statement. >> >>>You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play >>>trumps first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is >>>uncertain, since he will not be claiming. >> >>I have said that it is normal for a player who thinks his hand is >>high to play trumps first. Uncertainty has nothing to do with >>it. It it normal to play trumps first whether one is uncertain or >>not, just as it is normal to play trumps last whether one is >>uncertain or not. >>"For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that >>would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but >>not irrational." That means that a play must be either "'normal'" or >>"irrational". I believe, as Herman does, that it is not irrational >>to play trumps last, but that is arguable. I also believe, as Herman >>does not, that it is not irrational to play trumps first, but that >>too is arguable. What I reject is Herman's implied premise that if >>we believe that either one of these plays is not irrational, we must >>perforce conclude that the other is. >I have never said that. Herman, I have not said you did; I said that you implied it. What else am I to conclude when I write that I do not believe that declarer will always play trumps last, and you reply that since I do not believe that declarer will always play trumps last, I must therefore believe that declarer will always play trumps first. >Read my statement again : > > >> You were saying that it is normal, if one is uncertain, to play trumps > >> first. We replied that we are not considering a player who is > >> uncertain, since he will not be claiming. > >I have always said that I do NOT consider it normal, if one is >certain, to play trumps first. And I have inferred that you do believe that it is normal when one is not certain. Am I wrong? > No-one does this !!! This isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because people make wildly irrational plays all of the time. That's why we have reached a consensus here that whatever "normal" might mean, it doesn't mean "what people do". I very much doubt that there is any error that is possible at the game of bridge, no matter how ridiculously absurd, that has never been committed by someone at some time. >And of course you cannot prove it, because no-one actually plays them >out, except a beginner. >Something not even a beginner does, cannot be called normal, by any >stretch of the imagination. > >>>Well, whether he is wrong about the one or the other, we adjudge >>>that he shall play any suit first, but not trumps. >> >>That, IMO, is an entirely arbitrary judgment which is inconsistent >>with the law as it currently stands. The law requires that claimer >>be deemed to have taken the least successful "normal" line consistent >>with his claim statement, not that he be deemed to have taken the >>particular "normal" line which some eminent authority has said he >>must be deemed to have taken. To justify your judgment in the >>context of the current law, you must not only show that it is normal >>to play trumps last, but also that it is irrational not to. You >>can't dismiss the second requirement by saying that it logically >>follows from the first; it does not. >You are saying nothing that I have not said. I just say that it is not >normal for someone to play trumps first. Yes, that is judgment, but it >has nothing with the laws, just with your warped definition of >irrational. The EBLAC has delivered a verdict which says that your >definition of irrational is not a correct one. Don't try and turn >corners implying that I don't know what the laws say. My "warped definition of irrational"? I have stated repeatedly that I do not claim to be able to define "irrational". I have also stated that one need not have a complete, defensible working definition of "irrational" in order to address whether or not a particular play should be considered so. The EBLAC has delivered a verdict which says that failing to hold a trump until the end of the hand is irrational, and I have asked by what reasoning they reached that conclusion. I continue to hope that someone will tell me, and I continue to be prepared to change my mind if their reasoning is convincing. >>>As for your "doesn't make it right". We've argued a long time about >>>this normality. I'm saying it's normal, you're not. We can't >>>convince oneanother. > >And that is not the point of the discussion. What is the point of the >discussion is that by the EBLAC decision, an eminent body has state >where it thinks the line is. Individual TD's are allowed to follow >this advice or not. If they follow it, they will be ruling like a >mainstream TD will. The cited statement was Herman's, not mine. I must be making progress with Herman -- I've got him arguing with himself. But I think it's a bit unfair of Herman to suggest, that because TDs in the eastern part of the U.S. will not accept his precedent (see Ted Ying's post), and TDs in England will not accept his precedent (see David Burn's post), that all of those TDs are deviant from the "mainstream". >You're still trying to say that the rulling is wrong, becasuse you >alone have the correct interpretation of the word "irrational". Well >that is simply wrong. As I have said repeatedly, I neither propose nor defend any working definition of the word "irrational" -- IMO, that's what we have been trying to develop dialectically in this and other threads. Having said that I don't have one, I don't see how I can be accused of claiming that I have the only correct one. >>Not at all. I have never said that it's not normal; it is normal. >>Herman is saying not only that it is normal to play that way, but >>also that because is normal to play that way, it is therefore not >>normal to play any other way. I am saying that the latter does not >>necessarily follow from the former, indeed, cannot, else the lawbook >>would be spouting impossible nonsense when it talks about (in L70D, >>for example) "an alternative normal line of play that would be less >>successful", or even about (in L70C2) "any normal play". Surely >>these phrases must mean that it is possible for there to be more than >>one normal line or play. >Please don't put arguments in my mouth that if I have stated them, you >should know that is not my meaning. Replied to above. >For once and for all: I (and the EBLAC) consider it irrational to play >trumps first if one knows all his cards to be high. > >>>So the Laws don't settle this issue. The EBLAC has settled it. >> >>The issue, as I see it, is whether calling trumps last "normal" must >>mean that trumps first is perforce "not normal", and I believe that >>the Laws do settle this issue. If Herman or the EBLAC wish to put >>forth a justification consistent with the Laws which leads them to >>the conclusion that it is irrational to play trumps first, I will be >>happy to listen to it. But so far, the only alleged justification I >>have heard is "it is normal to play trumps last", which is true, but >>irrelevant. There must be an implied second premise in order for the >>conclusion to follow, and I can find no such premise that is not >>inconsistent with the laws. >Well, consider that justification given. Excuse me? I say that I am waiting for someone to tell me what the reasoning behind the EBLAC attempt to "settle[] it" was, and Herman tells me to pretend that someone already has. I think I'll keep waiting for a bit longer. If the "justification given" Herman refers to is his statement above that, "No-one does this !!!", I believe that to be a factual error. >>>Well, many people on this list have asked for guidelines as to >>>deciding what is normal and what is not. >> >>And we need those, because the law requires us to judge whether any >>given play in any given situation is or is not normal. But the law >>not only does not require us make judgments as to which one of the >>possible plays in any given situation is the *only* normal one, it >>precludes us from making such judgments in the vast majority of >>situations. Yet that is exactly what the EBLAC has done: it has >>taken a situation in which there is more than one normal line of >>play, and adjudged that one of them is to be considered the only >>normal line of play. The laws do not permit this. >The laws do permit to calling a line "not normal". It is you who says >that equates to "irrational", and it is you who says that this line is >not irrational, therefore normal. Read the footnote again. Normal is >defined as including a number of adjectives, but not one other. To me >that suggests that there is a range of normality, and a line >somewhere. We're just searching where the line is. Exactly. Since it's too hard at this point to try to find it by proposing a line and debating whether it's the right one -- we've tried that, without success -- the next best way is to do what we're doing: examine individual cases and decide which side of the line they fall on. If we do this with enough cases, we should wind up with a pretty good idea of where the line goes. >>>This is such a guideline. >> >>This is a guideline for determining the answer to the wrong question, >>one which has no basis in the Law. I have no quarrel with the >>determination that playing trumps last is normal. But that is not >>the same as a determination that a player who claims without >>specifying the order in which he will play his suits shall be deemed >>to play trumps last. That, I argue, violates the Law, which requires >>that alternative normal lines of play be taken into account. >Can you not understand that we are using shorthand. "The normal thing >to do" may not be synonymous to "anything else is irrational", but it >was certainly meant that way. I understand precisely. But when I said, earlier, that it looked to me as though when the committee said that trumps last was normal, they seemed to be saying, in effect, that anything else was irrational, Herman took me to task for "put[ting] arguments in [his] mouth". Of course, we have a lot less to debate if what Herman is saying now is that "the normal thing to do" was meant as a temporary "shorthand" for such an implication *only in this case*, and that in some future case the committee might use "the normal thing to do" without implying any such thing, then I have drawn an incorrect conclusion as to their intent (and Herman has drawn an incorrect conclusion as to the force of their precedent), but I hope others can see where my confusion might be understandable. >Besides, no use trying to justify now why you have been worming all >through. This is the first time you have used these arguments, and, >while they are certainly correct, they are easily countered. We did >not mean what you ascribe to us. Herman correctly characterizes what I "ascribed" to the committee when he writes, "The laws do permit to calling a line 'not normal'. It is you who says that equates to 'irrational'." Then he writes, "'The normal thing to do' may not be synonymous to 'anything else is irrational', but it was certainly meant that way." Then he says, "We did not mean what you ascribe to us." Duh? Don't what he claims I ascribed and what he says the committee meant mean almost exactly the same thing? >When Alain tried to help us along by stating that it is only rational >for a player to draw trumps first, if he is uncertain about it, it was >because you kept insisting that some people do indeed play turmps >first. But that is not the situation that we are considering. No-one, >in this situation, will play trumps first. If that is not one possible >definition of a non-normal play, then I don't know what is. Well, I think they sometimes do. I've seen it many times. We're talking about positions in which a declarer has one trump and all his other cards are high, and believes that all of the trump have been pulled. My experience, very different from Herman's, is that such a player (whether he be a rank novice or a world-class expert who has been asked by his opponents not to claim) will *always* play his trump first *when it is the ace* and will *never* play his trump first *when it is the deuce*. Therefore, if we are to make one consistent determination, rather than 13 separate ones, as to which he might do when he has a trump (of any rank) left, my real-world experience tells me that he might do either. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 08:29:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18LTAv17094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:29:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18LT0H17069 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:29:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g18LJpu19656; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:19:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:19:31 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 pausing cases To: Karel , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020208162000-r01010800-20dabb50-0904-0109@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 2/8/02 at 2:18 AM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > I have seen this particular East and others use this public brow beating > tactic on several occasions. It inevitably occurs when they are losing and > are trying to upset the opps rythme. Is there any Law which could be > applied here to stop this or even penalise this ?? How about Law 74 or Law 91? 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 Feb 9 08:45:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Lims20148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:44:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18LicH20119 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:44:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZIg4-0005G0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:35:29 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208160036.00afce50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:35:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C63B6A3.50407@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <3C638CB9.60701@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 06:29 AM 2/8/02, Herman wrote: >While mulling it over, I stumbled on an argument that might >just resolve my dispute with Eric. > >Eric says that playing trumps first is not irrational. >I say that playing trumps last is "normal" (not the law >sense of the word). > >Maybe we are both right. > >And maybe that is not important. > >The footnote says : normal includes careless, inferior but >not irrational. > >nothing is said about rational lines. > >If the Lawmakers had intended to exclude only irrational >lines, they should have said normal = rational. > >May we perhaps conclude that there are lines that are >rational, but are not to be considered normal (bridge sense). > >Lines that no-one effectively plays, even though they are >rational. >Examples could include playing sequences bottom-up, and this >playing trumps first >It's not irrational, but that's not the same as saying it's >normal. This is nicely reasoned, and would resolve the debate if L69-71 used the word "normal", as Herman does, in the ordinary sense of the word. Unfortunately, they don't: they have given us a footnote that redefines "normal" in a rather idiosyncratic way which precludes us from using it as Herman does, or as any ordinary speaker of English would. If there were no footnote, if L70C3 read "a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal, but not irrational, play", Herman's argument would provide the missing legal basis for the EBLAC decision that I have been seeking, and I would agree that the committee's logic was justified. Because we would then be entitled to read the word "normal" as having its ordinary English meaning. However, we are not (which I beleive to be a good thing, but that's for a different thread). We have dissected every word of that footnote repeated here. I believe we agree that it suggests three classes of plays: (1) Plays which are neither careless, inferior nor irrational (in ordinary English, these would be normal). (2) Plays which are careless or inferior, but not irrational (in ordinary English, some of these would be normal, some would not). (3) Plays which are irrational (in ordinary English, these would be abnormal). It specifies that for purposes of adjudicating claims, all plays in class (2) are to be considered normal, whether by the standards of ordinary English they would be so or not. So when Herman argues that "[saying] it's not irrational... is not the same as saying it's normal", he is, of course, 100% correct in the context of the English language. And it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude, in that context, that "[we may] perhaps conclude that there are lines that are rational, but are not to be considered normal". But we are forbidden from doing so by the words of the footnote, because the footnote tells us that lines that are not irrational *must* be considered normal even if they are not. Herman writes, "If the Lawmakers had intended to exclude only irrational lines, they should have said normal = rational." As I read the footnote, that is exactly what they did say (or, more precisely, "normal = not irrational", but that's the same thing by definition), albeit in somewhat different words. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 08:47:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18LlFJ20558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:47:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18Ll6H20538 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:47:06 +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 g18Lbru08372; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:37:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:30:59 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C6388A0.9060208@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020208163803-r01010800-c9fc4894-0904-0109@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 2/8/02 at 9:13 AM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > Since they are not binding on even the EBL, why should they > not have the same standing in other zones ? If they aren't binding, then the EBLAC has not "settled it". > If a judge in Bush County, Clinton State rules a certain > way, cannot a lawyer in Clinton County, Bush State, use this > as a precedent ? Damfino. I'm not a lawyer. :-) > Of course the other judge will rule according to his own > mind, but isn't it a good thing if he decides to go along > with his colleague ? What I do know, which is that precedents in one US circuit court are not binding on the others, and are often ignored in those other circuits, says that it is not necessarily a good thing if he "goes along" - and certainly not if he does so blindly. > We're all looking, here on blml, for guidance. Now when a > piece of guidance has surfaced, you want to argue that it is > simply wrong ? If I disagree with something because I think it is wrong, I *will* argue against it. > And because you don't happen to agree, you want to argue > against all the others ? Of course. Why not? Even if I were alone in my disagreement, and apparently I'm not, that fact alone does not mean that "all the others" are right. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Feb 9 08:57:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Luv722348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:56:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18LunH22334 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:56:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ZIru-0007hR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:47:42 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208164110.00b09890@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:48:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <000f01c1b0a8$76741d40$09cb049b@netop7210> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208081139.00b009e0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:56 AM 2/8/02, Sven wrote: >And where in the laws is there a foundation for a different interpretation >under Law46 whether you say "play" or "cash"? Right there in L46. When declarer says "cash" rather than "play", he has, IMO, quite clearly "direct[ed] dummy to win the trick". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 9 09:32:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18MWC728529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:32:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18MW2H28504 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:32:03 +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 g18MMqu26519; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:22:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:20:17 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: "Robert E. Harris" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020208172301-r01010800-d5a539d3-0904-0109@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 2/8/02 at 2:04 PM, HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) wrote: > OK. Limit Director to no more than two penalties per session, like ACBL > psychs. On what basis? (He asked curiously). 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 Feb 9 09:38:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18MblZ29591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:37:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18MbbH29564 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:37:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g18MSMH03340 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:28:22 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202082228.g18MSMH03340@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:28:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Robert E. Harris" at Feb 08, 2002 02:04:11 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 Ummm...this is not a good idea (I'll leave out the more colorful descriptions of it that came to my mind). If you do this, then there are many players who once they've heard of a couple of PP being awarded will "take a view" on a hand or otherwise, find a way to abuse the laws and know that they are not going to be punished. If you think that you can get away with a limited number of penalties per session, you've probably never directed a multi- section, event. We have a 60 table weekly game that manages to garner in the neighborhood of a half dozen PP's per session. -Ted. > Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:04:11 -0600 > From: "Robert E. Harris" > > >On 2/7/02 at 4:51 PM, HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) wrote: > > > >> A half a board procedural penalty for every claim made with no statement > >> would get rid of the whole problem very soon(and probably any bridge club > >> that enforced it.) Maybe directors grumbling very fiercly would do the > >> trick, but not drive the customers away. > > > >Um. "When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied > >at once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of > >law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural > >penalty only seldom." - > >Preface to the North American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract > >Bridge, > >1997. > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > > OK. Limit Director to no more than two penalties per session, like ACBL > psychs. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 09:55:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18Mt3m01707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:55:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g18MssH01685 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:54:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g18Mjh103673 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:45:43 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:45:43 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 08, 2002 03:36:37 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, 08 Feb 2002 15:36:37 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind > > someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken three > > tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your > > ear, "Trumps are out and my spades are high, but it's understood that > > nobody ever claims here." As she is whispering to you, she puts the S9 > > on the table and an opponent follows with a low trump. She then cashes > > her two spades, and scores up her game. The challenge is to explain to > > her why she has played irrationally. If anyone can do so convincingly > > (neither she nor I would accept "because such-and-such eminent authority > > says so"), I am prepared to accept that "'turmps first' conflicts > > with... L70C" and give up the fight. > > > > Now if this were a real life scenario, you might have a > point. but do you really believe this player would play > trumps first ? > Don't say that it's rational, do you really believe it is > ever done ? > That's our point. > Read my other mail. Rationality does not equate with normal. > Yes, we have quite a number of people who will say "Well, all the trumps are out, but let's just check for lurkers, shall we? And plays an extra round of trumps before claiming. Or "Let's get the kiddies off the street and just in case there are any left..." I've encountered many people who will play an extra round of trumps when they think trumps are out, just to be sure. Maybe it's an American thing, but I don't think so. I've encountered this at the club level, the sectional level, the regional level and even at the national level most recently at Las Vegas. I've encountered this from my novice/intermediate students (who are afraid of getting a lecture if they fail to clear trumps...even when they think they have) to good players. So why should I deem that this is not normal? This isn't a question of rationality, but a question of whether it is frequent enough to be considered normal. And I think it is. -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 Feb 9 09:57:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18MvRf02095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:57:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18MvJH02073 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA10112 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:48:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA22857 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:48:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:48:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202082248.RAA22857@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 pausing cases X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Karel" > (5) Pd's pause if it indicated anything would be a wish to bid 3D's - > decreasing the chance of an extra diamond trick (as now E could be short) > and infact making the double less attractive. This is a reasonable argument, but at first glance I don't buy it. It seems to me that the pause shows extra values, making the double more attractive. I could be persuaded to change my mind. The rest of the arguments are either unconvincing or irrelevant. My strong inclination is to adjust the score, but I don't suppose an appeal would be frivolous. > South estimated that logically going through 1-6 took 4-6 seconds. He felt > he couldn't possibly have gone any faster. Irrelevant, as others have said. South hasn't committed any infraction. The question is whether North has. > (7) 5C is signoff - it indicates no wish to play in a slam. 4C would be a > slam try. Pd's 6C bid was on his own. The pause and subsequent bidding > indicated no extras or any wish to be in slam. North bid 6 and got lucky. Here again, North (and later the TD and AC) have to decide what South was thinking about. The alternatives to 5C were 4C and 6C, both stronger than 5C, but I think also passing 3NT. This would suggest NOT bidding 6C. I think this is a case where you had to be there and talk to the players, especially North. My inclination is not to adjust, but I could very easily be persuaded otherwise. The NS case would be much stronger if 4C had been weaker than 5C. In that case, there would most likely have been no way for North to guess which problem South had. > Before the TD arrived East (a top player) accused North of unethical > behaviour and made it quite clear to the surrounding tables that N was > in his opinion way out of line. Was the director made aware of this? It is unacceptable conduct. Depending on exactly what happened, penalties under L91 might range from half a board to ejection. I don't think a mere warning suffices if North's behavior affects other tables and certainly not if North has misbehaved before. (Unfortunately, not all ACBL directors would agree with me, although things here may be improving.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 10:03:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g18N30u02987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:03:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18N2oH02968 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:02:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g18Mrba03882; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:53:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c1b0f3$7211df80$6600a8c0@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206113545.00a37090@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207122855.00a2d160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C62E54D.6020502@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208081139.00b009e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208164110.00b09890@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:53:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 Landauwrote: > At 08:56 AM 2/8/02, Sven wrote: > > >And where in the laws is there a foundation for a different interpretation > >under Law46 whether you say "play" or "cash"? > > Right there in L46. When declarer says "cash" rather than "play", he > has, IMO, quite clearly "direct[ed] dummy to win the trick". > Yes, with any of the available cards (including the deuce) because he believes those are the only cards left from that suit. Technically: Whether he says "play" or "cash" he has just named the suit, not the rank. Of course, I too would use the header part of Law46B (I wasn't unaware of that) as I would if it was incontrovertible from the situation that he meant the highest card also by saying "play". In either case it takes some evidence to rule that way. 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 Feb 9 12:24:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g191O5529460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:24:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g191NuH29442 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:23:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-173-191.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.173.191] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZM6I-00026P-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: <030401c1b106$e8dcf740$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200202082021.PAA22624@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:12:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > [0] No play is both normal and irrational. > > I think part of your difficulty may be the difference between a > proposition and a definition. That, indeed, is what caused the original confusion in my mind and in the minds of other contributors. I had intended with my last post to attempt to establish the position irrespective of the English meanings of "normal" and "irrational". I am aware that in so doing I have answered only half the question, but it seemed to me appropriate to take matters a step at a time. > As you say, a proposition's being true does not necessarily make its > converse and inverse true. For a definition, however, the definition, > converse, and inverse are all true or false together. That is, a > definition contains an implicit "if and only if." For example, a bid > is _sufficient_ if and only if it is above any prior bid (defining > 'sufficient'). Oh, quite so. We both know perfectly well that if the Law said: "A play is normal if and only if it is rational", there would be no difficulty. But the Law does not say that. The Law says only that all irrational plays are abnormal, which is not the same thing at all, for it does not imply (as I have tried to show) that a play is normal if it is rational. I do not agree with you that a definition contains an implicit "iff"; for practical purposes, a definition may refine what is given or implicit without restating it. When the Lawmakers wrote that "normal includes the careless or inferior, but not the irrational", they were not actually attempting to redefine the word "normal"; if they were, then anything not careless or not inferior would have to be considered abnormal. (They should, of course, have used "and" instead of "or" in any case, but I expect they wrote that bit after lunch.) Rather, they were (somewhat carelessly) attempting to say that " 'normal' includes the normal, the careless, and the inferior, but..." where the first " 'normal' " is the neologism they were attempting to define, and the second "normal" has the accepted English connotation. It is as if one were to be employed on a farm, knowing only that a farm was inhabited by animals, but being unable to distinguish one animal from another. If told by the farmer to feed the pigs, one might ask: "Which are the pigs?" The farmer might then "define" the pigs by saying that they were the pink things. Now, no one would accept "a pink thing" as a "definition" of a pig, but the farmer's "definition" would be adequate for the purposes of the new farmhand, who would then not go off and feed the sheep. If he were instead to go off and feed the pink cows, that would be the farmer's fault - and there are occasions on which the makers of the Laws seem to me to exhibit all the characteristics of just such a farmer. > What the lawmakers have given us is a dichotomy: for purposes of L70, > every play must be either "normal" or "irrational" but not both. Indeed. But this does *not" mean that a play must be admitted into the "normal" category if it is considered not irrational. It does mean that a play must be dismissed from the "normal" category if it is considered irrational, but that is not the same thing at all. The footnote to the Laws does *not* imply that if a play is rational, then it is normal. A play may be dismissed from consideration under Law 70 if it is abnormal, regardless of whether or not it is rational. To put this as simply as I can (and as simply as Herman has already put it), there may be plays that are rational but not normal. I have reached the stage at which I am prepared to consider whether this is or is not so. You and Eric do not appear to agree with me that this is the important question - to you, if the Laws imply that if a play is rational, then it is normal. All I have tried to show is that this is not "necessarily true". It may be true, of course, but that is not the same thing. > It > doesn't help that the words used are not a pair that are normally > considered opposites, but the task before us is to figure out how to > tell whether a given play is in one category or the other. No, it is not. The task before us is to decide whether all rational plays are normal. The Law does not imply that they are. The Law says only that normal plays and irrational plays are two sets whose intersection is empty. The Law does not say that rational plays and abnormal plays are two sets whose intersection is also empty. The Law enjoins us to consider only normal plays. If there are rational plays that are not normal, the Law enjoins us not to consider them. To put this as simply as I can, Eric's argument that a claimer might "rationally" do X does not mean that a score should be assigned on the basis that (therefore) a claimer might "normally" do X. > We have a few clues: many kinds of carelessness are considered > "normal." There are some specific rules about trumps and finesses. > There is a WBFLC interpretation to the effect that "class of player" > matters. There are various examples of precedent, not all of which we > all approve. There are various SO/NBO guidelines. And after that, we > are on our own. Sounds a bit bleak. Still, we might take comfort in the words of Rudyard Kipling, which I have often thought ought to be the motto of BLML: Then only the Master shall praise us, And only the Master shall blame, And no one will work for pleasure, And no one will work for fame, But each, for the joy of the working, And each in his separate star, Shall draw the thing as he sees it For the God of things as they are. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 19:54:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g198rAE25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:53:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g198r0H25687 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:53:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.16.113] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ZT6s-000M5P-00; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 08:43:51 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1b146$45bb1480$7110e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200202082021.PAA22624@cfa183.harvard.edu> <030401c1b106$e8dcf740$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Pink elephants (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:45:06 -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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > No, it is not. The task before us is to decide whether all > rational plays are normal. The Law does not imply that > they are. The Law says only that normal plays and > irrational plays are two sets whose intersection is empty. > The Law does not say that rational plays and abnormal > plays are two sets whose intersection is also empty. > The Law enjoins us to consider only normal plays. If > there are rational plays that are not normal, the Law > enjoins us not to consider them. To put this as simply > as I can, Eric's argument that a claimer might "rationally" > do X does not mean that a score should be assigned on > the basis that (therefore) a claimer might "normally" > do X. > +=+ I am greatly uplifted by this perceptive recital. I am solely inclined to muse whether perhaps what was written reflected a belief that all things abnormal but not irrational would be encompassed within the inferior and the careless. On a technical note I would have thought that in the context of the actual wording of the footnote to change 'or' to 'and' would cause it to mean what it was not intended to mean; one might suggest 'and the'. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 22:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19BRwd24186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:27:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19BRmH24166 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:27:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19BIVc01606 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:18:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C65059C.4000504@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:18:52 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <3C638CB9.60701@village.uunet.be> <3C63B6A3.50407@village.uunet.be> <001501c1b0aa$1182d3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > >> > > You are now on the right track, but I have been teached (in Norway) > to interpret "Normal" in the footnote to include everything that is > definitely > not irrational. Well, that is not how I read the footnote. You may have been taught wrong. And it certainly is not what is written in the footnote. It includes any play that might depend upon your memory > or analytic mind (except that you are "allowed" to remember a player > having shown out on a suit previously during the play) and it includes > everything that might depend upon your judgement, assuming that you > just might judge wrong given the chance. Such a chance, however small, > is not to disappear with a claim without the claimer demonstrating that he > is aware of the possibility when he claims. > But the point in this case is not whether a player thinks something wrong, but how he shall play the hand, which "normal" lines he has. Some people consider it normal to play trumps first, but a (silent) majority seems to believe that it is not normal. This is a close call, but is it not for the best that all TD's over the world would judge this alike ? Why do some people have such difficulty in accepting that this line of play is judged not normal ? > What is considered "irrational" is like not overruffing when an unexpected > ruff appears from the leaders LHO or not covering for instance a King > from LHO with the Ace instead of giving away the trick playing the Queen > under that King. > I do know an irrational line when I see one. > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 9 22:51:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19BowO28021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:50:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19BomH27985 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:50:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19Bfbc23182 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:41:37 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C650B06.7030202@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:41:58 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> 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: > >> No-one does this !!! > > > This isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because people make wildly > irrational plays all of the time. That's why we have reached a > consensus here that whatever "normal" might mean, it doesn't mean "what > people do". I very much doubt that there is any error that is possible > at the game of bridge, no matter how ridiculously absurd, that has never > been committed by someone at some time. > No Eric, that is not true. Every once in a while, someone revokes, yet revokes are not considered normal in deciding upon claims. So your argument is invalid. > > > My "warped definition of irrational"? I have stated repeatedly that I > do not claim to be able to define "irrational". I have also stated that > one need not have a complete, defensible working definition of > "irrational" in order to address whether or not a particular play should > be considered so. > > The EBLAC has delivered a verdict which says that failing to hold a > trump until the end of the hand is irrational, and I have asked by what > reasoning they reached that conclusion. I continue to hope that someone > will tell me, and I continue to be prepared to change my mind if their > reasoning is convincing. > They have not said it was irrational, they have said it was not normal. As I explained, not the same thing. Look Eric, you have not convinced me or anyone else that the EBLAC has gone against the Law. This is a gray area, and the world could do with some consensus. Let it rest. > > But I think it's a bit unfair of Herman to suggest, that because TDs in > the eastern part of the U.S. will not accept his precedent (see Ted > Ying's post), and TDs in England will not accept his precedent (see > David Burn's post), that all of those TDs are deviant from the > "mainstream". > Well, if all the 123,5 other countries in the WBF accept it, I call that mainstream. >> >> Well, consider that justification given. > > > Excuse me? I say that I am waiting for someone to tell me what the > reasoning behind the EBLAC attempt to "settle[] it" was, and Herman > tells me to pretend that someone already has. I think I'll keep waiting > for a bit longer. If the "justification given" Herman refers to is his > statement above that, "No-one does this !!!", I believe that to be a > factual error. > How can you say that ! Give this hand to a beginner and have him play until trick 13. > > > Exactly. Since it's too hard at this point to try to find it by > proposing a line and debating whether it's the right one -- we've tried > that, without success -- the next best way is to do what we're doing: > examine individual cases and decide which side of the line they fall > on. If we do this with enough cases, we should wind up with a pretty > good idea of where the line goes. > That's exactly what the EBLAC has done. And then you go and argue that the Law says they are wrong. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 9 22:57:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19BuuU29167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:56:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19BulH29147 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:56:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19BlYc28808 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:47:34 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C650C6B.7050507@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:47:55 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@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 David Burn wrote: > > Now, here is a definition of "normal". It is not a very good definition, > it is not a definition that would be supported by any English > dictionary. But it is a definition within a specific context, and it is > a defintion for practical purposes. What it says is: that which is not > rational is not normal. What that implies is: that which is normal is > rational. Or, in terms of the propositional calculus, if q is > irrational, then q is not normal; contrapositively, if q is normal, then > q is rational. > Yes, but that is not what Eric is using. You are right to conclude that all normal plays are rational, but Eric says that all rational plays are normal. That does not follow from propositional calculus. Is it rational to play a suit bottom-up : might be. And yet by an ACBL interpretation it is not normal. There certainly exists a non-empty class of rational, non-normal plays. > What Herman is doing is understandable, but fallacious. His argument > above is that "trumps first" is not normal because no one would do it. > That is probably true, and we will grant that it is always true. But > that does not matter, for we are *not* using "that which people would > sometimes do" as a definition of "normal". Instead, we are using - and > must continue to use throughout - that definition of "normal" that > appears in the footnote to the Laws. By *that* definition, rationality > does indeed equate with normality, as I have shown above. > As you have fallaciously shown above !!!è!!!!!!! > Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that > this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational > actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves > open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it > does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not > rational. > indedd, and here is a rational action that is non-normal. You have just proven my argument ! > >>I don't believe this will ever happen, thus I don't think it >>is normal. >> > > Herman is using the word "normal" in its broad, English sense to say: > this action is not normal because no one would ever do it. But he may > not reason thus, because that is not a definition of the word "normal" > that the Laws permit us to use. > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 9 22:58:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19Bwnd29547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:58:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19BweH29523 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:58:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19BnVc00674 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:49:31 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:49:52 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is what I like about David: he may be stubborn, but in the end he gets there and admits it: David Burn wrote: > > Eric, it seems to me, considers that all rational lines are normal. But > Herman does not think that this is what the Law says. He thinks that a > director or a committee may reject as a basis for score assignment a > line that is considered abnormal, even though it would not be considered > irrational. He may very well be right. > > -- 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 Feb 9 23:50:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19Co4208174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 23:50:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19CnsH08150 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 23:49:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19Cecc13600 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:40:38 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6518DB.8030309@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:40:59 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202082021.PAA22624@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: "David Burn" > >>This gives the proposition: >> >>[0] No play is both normal and irrational. >> > > I think part of your difficulty may be the difference between a > proposition and a definition. > > As you say, a proposition's being true does not necessarily make its > converse and inverse true. For a definition, however, the definition, > converse, and inverse are all true or false together. That is, a > definition contains an implicit "if and only if." For example, a bid > is _sufficient_ if and only if it is above any prior bid (defining > 'sufficient'). > > What the lawmakers have given us is a dichotomy: for purposes of L70, > every play must be either "normal" or "irrational" but not both. It > doesn't help that the words used are not a pair that are normally > considered opposites, but the task before us is to figure out how to > tell whether a given play is in one category or the other. > No "Frabjous" and "non-Frabjous". Frabjous includes careless and inferior (but certainly also other lines, such as eminently sensible ones) Non-Frabjous includes irrational. It must also include other ones, or why else do the Laws say "normal" if they would only mean "rational". > We have a few clues: many kinds of carelessness are considered > "normal." There are some specific rules about trumps and finesses. > There is a WBFLC interpretation to the effect that "class of player" > matters. There are various examples of precedent, not all of which we > all approve. There are various SO/NBO guidelines. And after that, we > are on our own. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 9 23:55:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19Ct5u08862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 23:55:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19CsuH08836 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 23:54:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45400.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.88]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19Cjjc17575 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:45:45 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C651A0E.6090401@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:46:06 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > Yes, we have quite a number of people who will say "Well, all the > trumps are out, but let's just check for lurkers, shall we? And > plays an extra round of trumps before claiming. Or "Let's get the > kiddies off the street and just in case there are any left..." > I've encountered many people who will play an extra round of trumps > when they think trumps are out, just to be sure. Maybe it's an > American thing, but I don't think so. I've encountered this at > the club level, the sectional level, the regional level and even > at the national level most recently at Las Vegas. I've encountered > this from my novice/intermediate students (who are afraid of > getting a lecture if they fail to clear trumps...even when they > think they have) to good players. So why should I deem that this > is not normal? This isn't a question of rationality, but a question > of whether it is frequent enough to be considered normal. And I > think it is. > But those are people who are uncertain, and they don't claim. People who claim are certain, and so your observation does not help us in deciding what people would normally do in the situation that has arisen. > -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/ > > -- 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 Feb 10 00:18:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19DIDb12215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:18:13 +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 g19DI4H12191 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:18:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-184-186.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.184.186] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16ZXFJ-0005IE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:08:49 +0000 Message-ID: <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:06:35 -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: > This is what I like about David: he may be stubborn, but in > the end he gets there and admits it: Gets where? Admits what? Herman, I have got nowhere near the end of this problem. > > Eric, it seems to me, considers that all rational lines are normal. But > > Herman does not think that this is what the Law says. He thinks that a > > director or a committee may reject as a basis for score assignment a > > line that is considered abnormal, even though it would not be considered > > irrational. He may very well be right. Please do not read this as an endorsement of the view that there actually *are* rational lines that are not normal. I say only that there may be, that the possibility is not excluded by the Laws, and that the arguments of Eric Landau and others may be fallacious if they are based on the premise that all rational lines are necessarily normal. Neither do I assert that an answer to this question would be a good thing for some "eminent authority" to produce. I have the awful feeling that the answer will be: "There are rational lines that are not normal, and individual TDs and ACs will have to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular line falls into this category". Of course, this would be no more than a hugely unsatisfactory justification for continuing with the present appalling shambles. What the "eminent authority" ought instead to do is produce a set of rules that do not rely on individual case-by-case judgements, but instead can be consistently applied by all levels of officials to all levels of play. But of course, it is rather too late to suggest that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 10 01:49:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19Eluv28877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:47:56 +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 g19EliH28852 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:47:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.58.57] (helo=dawnhass) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ZYe9-0002bq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:38:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:37:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if I'm repeating what other's have said, but I am trying to understand the different positions; especially Herman's! (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of declarer's who are *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. They may be mistaken in their belief, but at the time of their claim they have no doubts. He has therefore rejected as evidence of normal lines of play, those made by declarers who believe their hand is high but who have nagging doubts ("just checking for lurkers"; "these should be high now"). OK so far. If we cannot check to see what people do in practice, how can we judge what is normal. Herman, and the Tenerife appeal committee, have asserted that no declarer would ever normally play their trump first. I don't agree, as it happens, but it is a judgement call and I am prepared to accept that they are correct. So, at the time of the claim, declarer believes his hand is high, and if he had not claimed, he would normally play trumps last. We have established that it is irrelevant that it would not be irrational to play trumps first; the laws allow for a class of plays that are rational, but are not normal (including the careless and inferior). I can accept this in principle. However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would be, literally, careless. Where am I going wrong? Damian Hassan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 10 01:51:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19Ephv29320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:51:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g19EpWH29316 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:51:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g19EgKR23943 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:42:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:42 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 pausing cases 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208094559.00b02bf0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > This one is much closer. The presumptive break in tempo by S strongly > suggests that he is heavy for his 5C signoff, and makes N's 6C bid more > attractive. It looks to me as though the break in tempo was that of a man considering passing 3NT - I think that suggests *against* 6C if anything. 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 Sun Feb 10 03:09:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19G9AG12225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 03:09:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19G8xH12196 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 03:09:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47611.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.251]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g19Fxlc00045 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:59:47 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C654787.9000802@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:00:07 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Damian has given a remarkably accurate state of the situation of the thread. I urge you to re-read if you have not done so very recently. Damian Hassan wrote: > I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if > I'm repeating what other's have said, but I am trying to understand the > different positions; especially Herman's! > > (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) > > Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of declarer's who are > *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. They may be mistaken > in their belief, but at the time of their claim they have no doubts. He > has therefore rejected as evidence of normal lines of play, those made > by declarers who believe their hand is high but who have nagging doubts > ("just checking for lurkers"; "these should be high now"). OK so far. > > If we cannot check to see what people do in practice, how can we judge > what is normal. Herman, and the Tenerife appeal committee, have asserted > that no declarer would ever normally play their trump first. I don't > agree, as it happens, but it is a judgement call and I am prepared to > accept that they are correct. So, at the time of the claim, declarer > believes his hand is high, and if he had not claimed, he would normally > play trumps last. > > We have established that it is irrelevant that it would not be > irrational to play trumps first; the laws allow for a class of plays > that are rational, but are not normal (including the careless and > inferior). I can accept this in principle. > > However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my > hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, > drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if > I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. > I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said > so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would > be, literally, careless. > > Where am I going wrong? > I don't know, I don't understand your last bit. If you would always play trumps last, then why would you call it careless to play them not last. You would simply not do so, not ever, not even in a careless manner. I don't mean to be overly certain about this "never" bit. The EBLAC has decided it would come in the same category as playing bottom-up. It's simply not "normal" (and that is in the Law sense of the word). > Damian Hassan > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 10 05:14:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19IDah05226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:13:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g19IDRH05210 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:13:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.54.14] (helo=dawnhass) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ZbrF-000DMJ-00; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 18:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1b194$045c0460$d920fea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> <3C654787.9000802@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 18:02:43 -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 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" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Damian has given a remarkably accurate state of the > situation of the thread. I urge you to re-read if you have > not done so very recently. > > Damian Hassan wrote: > > > I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if > > I'm repeating what other's have said, but I am trying to understand the > > different positions; especially Herman's! > > > > (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) > > > > Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of declarer's who are > > *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. They may be mistaken > > in their belief, but at the time of their claim they have no doubts. He > > has therefore rejected as evidence of normal lines of play, those made > > by declarers who believe their hand is high but who have nagging doubts > > ("just checking for lurkers"; "these should be high now"). OK so far. > > > > If we cannot check to see what people do in practice, how can we judge > > what is normal. Herman, and the Tenerife appeal committee, have asserted > > that no declarer would ever normally play their trump first. I don't > > agree, as it happens, but it is a judgement call and I am prepared to > > accept that they are correct. So, at the time of the claim, declarer > > believes his hand is high, and if he had not claimed, he would normally > > play trumps last. > > > > We have established that it is irrelevant that it would not be > > irrational to play trumps first; the laws allow for a class of plays > > that are rational, but are not normal (including the careless and > > inferior). I can accept this in principle. > > > > However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my > > hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, > > drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if > > I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. > > I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said > > so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would > > be, literally, careless. > > > > Where am I going wrong? > > > > > I don't know, I don't understand your last bit. If you would > always play trumps last, then why would you call it careless > to play them not last. You would simply not do so, not > ever, not even in a careless manner. I don't mean to be > overly certain about this "never" bit. The EBLAC has decided > it would come in the same category as playing bottom-up. > It's simply not "normal" (and that is in the Law sense of > the word). > OK. I'm trying to understand why you assert that a claimant will normally play trumps last. As I understand it, at the time of the claim he believes his hand is high. Nevertheless, he will play trumps last. Why? Simply out of force of habit? After all, he believes his side suit is high, so he has no reason to keep back his trumps. He just does so because it is normal to do so. I can accept this as a premise. What I am trying to suggest is that this normal play is a kind of reflex action. If you asked declarer why he played in this way, he would have no particular reason to do so - it's just the way it's normally done. After all, we have agreed that it is not irrational to play trumps first - just abnormal. What does the adjective careless mean? Chambers: "without care: heedless, *unconcerned*". It is this latter meaning I am using when I suggest that declarer would be careless if he played trumps first. His hand is high, it doesn't matter what is played first, he couldn't care less.This is different from some of the other automatic positions mentioned. For example, with A432 opposite KQJ65, I probably wouldn't specify that I am playing them from the top when I claimed, but I certainly do care about the order of play! So although declarer would not normally play trumps first, it would be careless to do so, and therefore covered by the footnote. Damian Hassan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 10 05:15:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19IEs605479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:14:54 +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 g19IEhH05442 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:14:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g19I5QI09768; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1b194$5bdbeb60$6600a8c0@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <3C638CB9.60701@village.uunet.be> <3C63B6A3.50407@village.uunet.be> <001501c1b0aa$1182d3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C65059C.4000504@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:05:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" .....(snip) > I do know an irrational line when I see one. So do I, but it seems we still have different views. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 10 05:18:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g19IIcH06192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:18:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19IISH06168 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:18:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g19I95509873; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:09:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c1b194$dc4a0840$6600a8c0@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Damian Hassan" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:09:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Damian Hassan" .....(snip) > However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my > hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, > drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if > I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. > I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said > so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would > be, literally, careless. > > Where am I going wrong? IMHO you are not! Sven > > Damian Hassan > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 10 11:54:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1A0rj025364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:53:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1A0rYH25337 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:53:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1A0jJw22267 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:45:20 GMT Message-ID: <+$PEx+AM2bZ8Ew0B@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:23:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> <3C654787.9000802@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C654787.9000802@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3C654787.9000802@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Damian has given a remarkably accurate state of the >situation of the thread. I urge you to re-read if you have >not done so very recently. > >Damian Hassan wrote: > 15 years of playing and arguing rulings with me has given Damian a grasp of how the Law should be applied that is denied to most players. Any gaps in his knowledge are entirely of my making for which I apologise. >> I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if >> I'm repeating what other's have said, but I am trying to understand the >> different positions; especially Herman's! >> >> (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) >> >> Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of declarer's who are >> *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. They may be mistaken >> in their belief, but at the time of their claim they have no doubts. He >> has therefore rejected as evidence of normal lines of play, those made >> by declarers who believe their hand is high but who have nagging doubts >> ("just checking for lurkers"; "these should be high now"). OK so far. >> >> If we cannot check to see what people do in practice, how can we judge >> what is normal. Herman, and the Tenerife appeal committee, have asserted >> that no declarer would ever normally play their trump first. I don't >> agree, as it happens, but it is a judgement call and I am prepared to >> accept that they are correct. So, at the time of the claim, declarer >> believes his hand is high, and if he had not claimed, he would normally >> play trumps last. >> >> We have established that it is irrelevant that it would not be >> irrational to play trumps first; the laws allow for a class of plays >> that are rational, but are not normal (including the careless and >> inferior). I can accept this in principle. >> >> However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my >> hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, >> drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if >> I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. >> I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said >> so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would >> be, literally, careless. >> >> Where am I going wrong? >> > > >I don't know, I don't understand your last bit. If you would >always play trumps last, then why would you call it careless >to play them not last. You would simply not do so, not >ever, not even in a careless manner. I don't mean to be >overly certain about this "never" bit. The EBLAC has decided >it would come in the same category as playing bottom-up. >It's simply not "normal" (and that is in the Law sense of >the word). > >> Damian Hassan >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 10 22:03:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1AB1be25886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:01:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1AB1SH25868 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:01:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-166-222.btinternet.com ([213.1.166.222] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Zrai-0004pz-00; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:52:17 +0000 Message-ID: <04c001c1b220$b81d2560$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:50:11 -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 I wrote: > Gets where? Admits what? Herman, I have got nowhere near the end of this > problem. Now: "normal includes play that would be careless or inferior..." which gives the propositions: [1] All careless lines are normal [2] All inferior lines are normal Remember that we are using the word "normal" in a sense other than its English meaning; in reality, it is not normal to play in a careless or inferior fashion. However, we are dealing with what the Law means, not what the dictionary says. Do you think it is possible for an irrational line of play to be other than an inferior line of play? If you do not (as to me seems entirely reasonable), then you are led to the conclusion that: [3] All irrational lines are inferior But if that is so, then the footnote contains a contradiction, for by [2] and [3] above all irrational lines are normal, yet the footnote explicitly says that no irrational line is normal. 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 Feb 11 02:04:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1AF3Wp04580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 02:03:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1AF3LH04558 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 02:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g1AEs4422097; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c1b242$c8db85a0$6600a8c0@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <04c001c1b220$b81d2560$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:54:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" .....(snip) > Now: > > "normal includes play that would be careless or inferior..." > > which gives the propositions: > > [1] All careless lines are normal > [2] All inferior lines are normal > > Remember that we are using the word "normal" in a sense other than its > English meaning; in reality, it is not normal to play in a careless or > inferior fashion. However, we are dealing with what the Law means, not > what the dictionary says. > > Do you think it is possible for an irrational line of play to be other > than an inferior line of play? If you do not (as to me seems entirely > reasonable), then you are led to the conclusion that: > > [3] All irrational lines are inferior > > But if that is so, then the footnote contains a contradiction, for by > [2] and [3] above all irrational lines are normal, yet the footnote > explicitly says that no irrational line is normal. There is no contradiciton if you say: All irrational lines are inferior, but not all inferior lines are irrational. 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 Feb 11 07:48:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1AKlRh07466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:47:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1AKlGH07443 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:47:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.124] (helo=dawnhass) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16a0f3-0001Rp-00; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:33:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c1b272$a31eb8c0$cd13fea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: "Damian Hassan" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C1AE48.B42841A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000501c1ae62$0b49d2a0$f087403e@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206075827.00aa01e0@pop.starpower.net> <3C614698.80905@village.uunet.be> <004c01c1b177$4633a9a0$c67dfea9@dawnhass> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:36:36 -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: "Damian Hassan" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if > I'm repeating what other's have said, but I am trying to understand the > different positions; especially Herman's! > > (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) > > Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of declarer's who are > *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. They may be mistaken > in their belief, but at the time of their claim they have no doubts. He > has therefore rejected as evidence of normal lines of play, those made > by declarers who believe their hand is high but who have nagging doubts > ("just checking for lurkers"; "these should be high now"). OK so far. > > If we cannot check to see what people do in practice, how can we judge > what is normal. Herman, and the Tenerife appeal committee, have asserted > that no declarer would ever normally play their trump first. I don't > agree, as it happens, but it is a judgement call and I am prepared to > accept that they are correct. So, at the time of the claim, declarer > believes his hand is high, and if he had not claimed, he would normally > play trumps last. > > We have established that it is irrelevant that it would not be > irrational to play trumps first; the laws allow for a class of plays > that are rational, but are not normal (including the careless and > inferior). I can accept this in principle. > > However, when I claim in such a position, I do so because I think my > hand is high. If I have not added a statement (playing X from the top, > drawing trumps, etc.) it is because I believe it is irrelevant. Even if > I would always play trumps last, it is not because I believe it matters. > I do not care what order they are played in, or else I would have said > so. So although I would normally play trumps last, to do otherwise would > be, literally, careless. > > Where am I going wrong? > > Damian Hassan Where am I going wrong? In the use of apostrophes, to start with :( Write out 100 times: I've been reading this thread with mounting incredulity. My apologies if I'm repeating what *others* have said, but I am trying to understand the different positions; especially Herman's! (In the text below, I use normal in the dictionary sense of the word.) Herman has made it clear that we are thinking of *declarers* who are *certain* that the rest of the tricks are theirs. Yours shamefacedly Damian Hassan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 11 09:04:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1AM4Ps22244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:04:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1AM4FH22220 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:04:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-19-33.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.19.33] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16a1w2-00017W-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:54:59 +0000 Message-ID: <04f901c1b27d$498e4040$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <04c001c1b220$b81d2560$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <000501c1b242$c8db85a0$6600a8c0@netop7210> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:51:56 -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 Sven wrote: > > [1] All careless lines are normal > > [2] All inferior lines are normal > > > > Remember that we are using the word "normal" in a sense other than its > > English meaning; in reality, it is not normal to play in a careless or > > inferior fashion. However, we are dealing with what the Law means, not > > what the dictionary says. > > > > Do you think it is possible for an irrational line of play to be other > > than an inferior line of play? If you do not (as to me seems entirely > > reasonable), then you are led to the conclusion that: > > > > [3] All irrational lines are inferior > > > > But if that is so, then the footnote contains a contradiction, for by > > [2] and [3] above all irrational lines are normal, yet the footnote > > explicitly says that no irrational line is normal. > > There is no contradiciton if you say: > All irrational lines are inferior, but not all inferior lines are > irrational. I fear that this is not actually so. Even if there exists only one line that is both irrational and inferior, then it is according to the words of the footnote both included in and excluded from lines that are "normal" - included because it is inferior, excluded because it is irrational. This is, of course, a contradiction (unless you are an intuitionist, for whom the law of the excluded middle does not hold.) It can be argued that what the footnote actually means is: "normal includes the careless but rational, and the inferior but rational; it excludes the irrational". Indeed, I imagine that this is the generally accepted interpretation. It follows that all lines of play may be considered to be one of: "normal", in the sense of "what is usually done" "careless but rational" "inferior but rational" "irrational" "abnormal" in the sense of "what is seldom or never done". The algorithm that should then be followed by someone adjudicating a claim and considering whether a line of play might be admitted as a basis for score adjustment is then: Is this line abnormal? If so, it is not admitted; else Is this line irrational? If so, it is not admitted; else This line is admitted. 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 Feb 11 13:04:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1B226D06101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:02:06 +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 g1B21vH06080 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:01:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.167] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16a5e8-0002ZT-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:52:45 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c1b29f$2d185c80$a739e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <04c001c1b220$b81d2560$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <000501c1b242$c8db85a0$6600a8c0@netop7210> <04f901c1b27d$498e4040$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:53:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Sven wrote: > > > > [1] All careless lines are normal > > > [2] All inferior lines are normal > > > > > > Remember that we are using the word "normal" in a sense > > > other than its English meaning; in reality, it is not normal > > > to play in a careless or inferior fashion. However, we are > > > dealing with what the Law means, not what the dictionary > > > says. > > > +=+ It may be timely to point out that the footnote does not define 'normal' - it qualifies 'normal'. +=+ > > I fear that this is not actually so. Even if there exists only > one line that is both irrational and inferior, then it is > according to the words of the footnote both included in > and excluded from lines that are "normal" - included > because it is inferior, excluded because it is irrational. > This is, of course, a contradiction (unless you are an > intuitionist, for whom the law of the excluded middle > does not hold.) > +=+ Before going too far down any particular road I would suggest a fresh look at the footnote. Read again closely: "careless or inferior, but not irrational". Should it not occur to us that what this says is to include the careless or inferior in the normal, but that the condition of irrationality shall exclude a matter notwithstanding all else in its nature? Be an action 'normal' or 'careless' or 'inferior', none of these or a combination of these, nonetheless if it be irrational throw it out. The footnote tells us to include actions of certain kinds amongst what is 'normal' but it makes no attempt to define how the balance of normality is to be construed. ~ 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 Feb 11 17:23:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1B6Km225731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:20:48 +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 g1B6KdH25717 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:20:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1B6BMY13030 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:11:22 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202110611.g1B6BMY13030@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:11:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 09, 2002 01:46:06 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: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:46:06 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > Yes, we have quite a number of people who will say "Well, all the > > trumps are out, but let's just check for lurkers, shall we? And > > plays an extra round of trumps before claiming. Or "Let's get the > > kiddies off the street and just in case there are any left..." > > I've encountered many people who will play an extra round of trumps > > when they think trumps are out, just to be sure. Maybe it's an > > American thing, but I don't think so. I've encountered this at > > the club level, the sectional level, the regional level and even > > at the national level most recently at Las Vegas. I've encountered > > this from my novice/intermediate students (who are afraid of > > getting a lecture if they fail to clear trumps...even when they > > think they have) to good players. So why should I deem that this > > is not normal? This isn't a question of rationality, but a question > > of whether it is frequent enough to be considered normal. And I > > think it is. > > But those are people who are uncertain, and they don't claim. > People who claim are certain, and so your observation does > not help us in deciding what people would normally do in the > situation that has arisen. > I don't agree with you. When a person says, "Well, all the trumps are out..." they usually mean they are sure. They may be wrong, but they are sure. They don't say, "Well, I think all the trumps are out..." or "I'm not sure..." they aver that they think the trumps are gone. But that doesn't stop people from being cautious and "checking for lurkers" in case they made an error. What I really believe that is that the world is split between people whose normal play is trumps first out of fear that they miscounted and people whose normal play is trumps last, which is where the controversy comes. Just like you can't determine whether everyone is pro-choice or pro-life. It doesn't happen. What you are trying to do is define normal for everyone when normal can vary. So, what I assert is that you should be able to define the ruling without having to define that a certain line of play is normal when the opposite is quite normal for a significant subset of players. This is one contention of the directors in this area, which is why they try to use the least favorable rule for the offenders wherever possible. It is then up to the defenders to justify it to an AC if they think they have a reasonable argument. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 11 19:07:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1B861d15775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:06:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1B85pH15744 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:05:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from netop7210 (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with SMTP id g1B7uQl31615; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:56:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c1b2d1$9c4a2b60$6600a8c0@netop7210> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202110611.g1B6BMY13030@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:56:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ted Ying" .....(snip) > This is one contention of the directors in this area, which is why > they try to use the least favorable rule for the offenders wherever > possible. It is then up to the defenders to justify it to an AC > if they think they have a reasonable argument. This immediately may seem strange to many, but there is a sound reason for such a policy, and this is what we teach at least here in Norway: The Director shall rule against or for the offending side as he feels is correct after having established the facts and consulted his lawbook. But if he feels an appeal is most likely whichever way he rules he should at least rule so that the appeal must come from the "offending side". 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 Feb 12 00:33:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BDVFs14718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:31:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BDV6H14697 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:31:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aGP3-00009N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:21:54 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:22:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@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 11:33 AM 2/8/02, David wrote: >The implications of this are that there may be rational actions that are >not normal. If, in the context of the Laws, an action is deemed >abnormal, then its rationality does not have to be considered - it may >simply be ignored as a possible line of play, even though it may be a >rational one. > >Let us replace the word "normal" as used in the footnote by some other >word, to make clear the fact that we are using a term specific to the >Laws of bridge and independent of its meaning in the English language. >Unfortunately, there is no word that I can call to mind in the English >language that will completely serve our purpose, so we will borrow one >from Lewis Carroll. And let us use the word "normal" in one of its >English senses: "that which is usually done". > >Let us, then, say that a "frabjous" line of play may be "normal, or >careless, or inferior... but not irrational". Now, the Laws enjoin us to >consider only frabjous lines of play - a claimer is deemed not to follow >any line that is not frabjous. Abnormal lines are by definition not >frabjous, so the question of whether or not they are rational does not >arise - they are simply not considered as possible lines on the basis of >which a score may be assigned. > >Eric, it seems to me, considers that all rational lines are normal. But >Herman does not think that this is what the Law says. He thinks that a >director or a committee may reject as a basis for score assignment a >line that is considered abnormal, even though it would not be considered >irrational. He may very well be right. In this context, of course, Eric agrees entirely with Herman that not all rational lines are normal, but believes, unlike Herman, that all rational lines *are* frabjous. David has very nicely reframed the debate. Using his lexicon, we can reduce the issue to the question: Do there exist lines of play which are rational but not frabjous? We can translate this, directly from the footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) irrational? I do not believe there are, but am prepared to change my mind if someone can come up with a convincing example. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 01:33:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BEXId27002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:33:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BEX8H26980 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:33:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1BENsG02323 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:23:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:23 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> Eric asks: > Can there exist lines of play which are none of > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > irrational? I do not believe there are, but am prepared to change my > mind if someone can come up with a convincing example. OK, here is an example. Declarer, who has previously successfully finessed against the HK by leading to HJ and then proceeded to cash winners ending in hand at this position. - AQ - - - J Kx x - - - - T x - - Claims with "and two heart tricks". In case a) we have a not very good declarer who "knows" that when finesses work once they work twice. This declarer doesn't really understand how squeezes work (although he knows they exist and would understand if you explained the position). In case b) we have a good declarer trying it on to avoid a guess. Now we can see that if HK is singleton in E a squeeze has been operated and thus both finessing and rising are "normal" actions and we award b) the fewest number of tricks possible on either play (1 on the actual hand, 0 on the squeeze hand). For player a) trying for the drop is certainly not careless, inferior or irrational. Nor do I think it can be called "normal" - this player and all those like him are finessing *every* time. So in this case, at least, I must rule that playing the drop is "frabjous". To me frabjous also includes playing suits from bottom up, leading Sx from a holding of x,AK,-,- (whatever is trumps) unless Spades are trumps and declarer, were he to be aware of the outstanding trump might consider it a reasonable possibility that said trump is lower than x. I guess Frabjous can be summed up, for me, as "A play that might be made by a perfectly functioning, but misinformed, computer but that expect the actual declarer would never* have found had he played on. *What never? Well, hardly ever:) Tim West-Meads (with apologies to Eric for double posting) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 01:39:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BEdI828176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:39:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BEd9H28147 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:39:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aHSu-00040h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:56 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211085619.00aa5120@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:30:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C650B06.7030202@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:41 AM 2/9/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>> No-one does this !!! >> >>This isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because people make wildly >>irrational plays all of the time. That's why we have reached a >>consensus here that whatever "normal" might mean, it doesn't mean >>"what people do". I very much doubt that there is any error that is >>possible at the game of bridge, no matter how ridiculously absurd, >>that has never been committed by someone at some time. >No Eric, that is not true. Every once in a while, someone revokes, yet >revokes are not considered normal in deciding upon claims. So your >argument is invalid. But that supports my position, which is that, in considering what is considered normal in deciding claims, we cannot, if we are to follow the laws, use the "what people do" test. Admittedly, the above point was rather off the track, so I'm not surprised if Herman or others were confused. It is not critical, or even, IMO, relevant, to the point of the debate. I was merely pointing out that if Herman believes that "no-one does this!!!", he is wrong with respect to a standard which he apparently believes matters, notwithstanding that I do not. >>My "warped definition of irrational"? I have stated repeatedly that >>I do not claim to be able to define "irrational". I have also stated >>that one need not have a complete, defensible working definition of >>"irrational" in order to address whether or not a particular play >>should be considered so. >>The EBLAC has delivered a verdict which says that failing to hold a >>trump until the end of the hand is irrational, and I have asked by >>what reasoning they reached that conclusion. I continue to hope that >>someone will tell me, and I continue to be prepared to change my mind >>if their reasoning is convincing. >They have not said it was irrational, they have said it was not >normal. As I explained, not the same thing. And as I have said repeatedly, that is what we are debating about: whether "not normal" as defined by the footnote is or is not the same thing as "irrational". >Look Eric, you have not convinced me or anyone else that the EBLAC has >gone against the Law. This is a gray area, and the world could do with >some consensus. Let it rest. > >>But I think it's a bit unfair of Herman to suggest, that because TDs >>in the eastern part of the U.S. will not accept his precedent (see >>Ted Ying's post), and TDs in England will not accept his precedent >>(see David Burn's post), that all of those TDs are deviant from the >>"mainstream". >Well, if all the 123,5 other countries in the WBF accept it, I call >that mainstream. It is not my impression that all of them have. From what I've read here, it is my impression that, at least as yet, nobody outside of the EBL has, and that not all jurisdictions within the EBL have either. Am I wrong? >>>Well, consider that justification given. >> >>Excuse me? I say that I am waiting for someone to tell me what the >>reasoning behind the EBLAC attempt to "settle[] it" was, and Herman >>tells me to pretend that someone already has. I think I'll keep >>waiting for a bit longer. If the "justification given" Herman refers >>to is his statement above that, "No-one does this !!!", I believe >>that to be a factual error. >How can you say that ! >Give this hand to a beginner and have him play until trick 13. Give the same beginner A/A/A/A. Tell him that spades are trump and have all been pulled, and ask him to play to take the rest of the tricks. In my experience, he will play the SA first almost every time. >>Exactly. Since it's too hard at this point to try to find it by >>proposing a line and debating whether it's the right one -- we've >>tried that, without success -- the next best way is to do what we're >>doing: examine individual cases and decide which side of the line >>they fall on. If we do this with enough cases, we should wind up >>with a pretty good idea of where the line goes. >That's exactly what the EBLAC has done. And then you go and argue that >the Law says they are wrong. I have certainly never argued that the Law says they were wrong to address the question; I have argued only that they came out with the wrong answer. When I said that "we" should "examine... and decide", I meant we within the world of bridge who have an interest in finding the line. "Examine... and decide" is quite different from "accept from on high the decision of the first committee who happens to address the particular case, right or wrong". Herman makes the point repeatedly that if I and all the others who don't like the the EBLAC's decision, which the EBU L&E Committee has called "unmitigated balderdash" (see David Burn's post of 2/7), would simply accept it and stop arguing, we would have a decision, and there would be no more argument about it. This is undoubtedly true, but I don't find it compelling. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 03:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BFxeO14143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BFxUH14107 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:59:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48037.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.165]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1BFns829384 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:49:54 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C67E836.3020700@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:50:14 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:33 AM 2/8/02, David wrote: > > > In this context, of course, Eric agrees entirely with Herman that not > all rational lines are normal, but believes, unlike Herman, that all > rational lines *are* frabjous. > > David has very nicely reframed the debate. Using his lexicon, we can > reduce the issue to the question: Do there exist lines of play which > are rational but not frabjous? We can translate this, directly from the > footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of the > following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) irrational? I do > not believe there are, but am prepared to change my mind if someone can > come up with a convincing example. > Well Eric, how about the Tenerife case ? And don't say that it is not convincing. 4 eminent people were convinced. Look, we've told you there is no reason to believe that the set of rational, non-frabjous plays is not empty, and there is even an example at hand. Why not accept this and move on? And if you really want another example, how about the ACBL-guideline that suits are played top-down. You might argue that there is nothing irrational about bottom-up. Another example of a rational play that is considered non-frabjous by some. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Tue Feb 12 03:01:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BG17d14367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:01:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BG0uH14336 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:00:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aIk3-0007Iv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:51:43 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211094531.00b09100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:52:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C650C6B.7050507@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1BG0wH14339 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:47 AM 2/9/02, Herman wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >>Now, here is a definition of "normal". It is not a very good definition, >>it is not a definition that would be supported by any English >>dictionary. But it is a definition within a specific context, and it is >>a defintion for practical purposes. What it says is: that which is not >>rational is not normal. What that implies is: that which is normal is >>rational. Or, in terms of the propositional calculus, if q is >>irrational, then q is not normal; contrapositively, if q is normal, then >>q is rational. > >Yes, but that is not what Eric is using. You are right to conclude >that all normal plays are rational, but Eric says that all rational >plays are normal. That does not follow from propositional calculus. What is what Eric is not using? Certainly not the premise that "that which is normal is rational". Certainly not the rules of logic (or "propositional calculus" if one prefers mathematical jargon). But it is meaningless to say that some conclusion "does not follow from propositional calculus". Conclusions "follow from" premises; propositional calculus is the means by which one derives the former from the latter. I have certainly not argued that my conclusion, "that which is rational is normal" follows solely from the premise "that which is normal is rational". Propositional calculus cannot take us from "that which is normal is rational" to "the sky is blue" either, but that does not mean that the sky is not blue. For clarity, I will use David's technique of replacing "'normal'" in the footnote by "frabjous". We have three premises we all accept: (P1) If q is normal, then q is frabjous. (P2) If q is careless or inferior but not irrational, then q is frabjous. (P3) If q is irrational, then q is not frabjous. We have two conflicting possible conclusions: (C1) That which is not irrational is frabjous (mine). (C2) That which is not irrational may not be frabjous (Herman's). By propositional calculus, neither C1 nor C2 can be concluded from P1-P3. David's incisive reasoning demonstrates that to reach one or the other conclusion, we need one or the other of two complementary premises: (P4a) There exist plays which are neither normal, careless, inferior nor irrational. (P4b) There do not exist plays which are neither normal, careless, inferior nor irrational. By propositional calculus, P1-P4a give C2, whereas P1-P4b give C1. My argument with Herman has nothing to do with propositional calculus, nor with logic of any kind. (I have never disputed Herman's use of logic, only his premises.) It is about which assertion is true, P4a or P4b. >Is it rational to play a suit bottom-up : might be. And yet by an ACBL >interpretation it is not normal. >There certainly exists a non-empty class of rational, non-normal plays. The ACBL interpretation is that playing a suit from the bottom up is irrational, from which it follows that it is neither normal nor frabjous. You may disagree; you may believe that playing a suit from the bottom up is rational but not normal without violating the rules of logic. You may additionally believe that it frabjous, but can do so without violating the rules of logic *only if you accept P4a*. The ACBL has never said that playing a suit from the bottom up (or anything else, for that matter) is rational but not normal. Whether one believes them to be right or wrong as to whether it is irrational has no bearing on the current point of debate. >>What Herman is doing is understandable, but fallacious. His argument >>above is that "trumps first" is not normal because no one would do it. >>That is probably true, and we will grant that it is always true. But >>that does not matter, for we are *not* using "that which people would >>sometimes do" as a definition of "normal". Instead, we are using - and >>must continue to use throughout - that definition of "normal" that >>appears in the footnote to the Laws. By *that* definition, rationality >>does indeed equate with normality, as I have shown above. >As you have fallaciously shown above !!!è!!!!!!! > >>Note for the mathematicians who are muttering at the back: I know that >>this "equality" is not a one-to-one correspondence between rational >>actions and normal ones. "if q is normal, then q is rational" leaves >>open the possibility of rational actions that are not normal. What it >>does not admit is the possibility of normal actions that are not >>rational. >indedd, and here is a rational action that is non-normal. > >You have just proven my argument ! David has certainly not proven Herman's argument; what he has done is to demonstrate that the proposition "if q is normal, then q is rational" does not, by itself, disprove Herman's argument. David, obviously, does not think he has proven anything, as he freely admits that he has not yet made up his own mind on the issue. And if David has not yet made up his mind on the issue, that, IMO, is sufficient justification for continuing the debate. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 03:02:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BG2UX14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:02:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BG2KH14529 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:02:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48037.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.165]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1BFqu802014 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:52:56 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C67E8EB.8020803@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:53:15 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211085619.00aa5120@pop.starpower.net> 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: > > Admittedly, the above point was rather off the track, so I'm not > surprised if Herman or others were confused. It is not critical, or > even, IMO, relevant, to the point of the debate. I was merely pointing > out that if Herman believes that "no-one does this!!!", he is wrong with > respect to a standard which he apparently believes matters, > notwithstanding that I do not. > No, quite the contrary. If something that sometimes happens is considered non-frabjous (revokes), then something that never happens can surely be a criterion for non-frabjousness. > -- 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 Feb 12 03:29:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BGTJo18705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:29:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BGT9H18683 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:29:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aJBN-0005vm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:19:57 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211110248.00b065d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:20:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C651A0E.6090401@village.uunet.be> References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:46 AM 2/9/02, Herman wrote: >But those are people who are uncertain, and they don't claim. >People who claim are certain, and so your observation does not help us >in deciding what people would normally do in the situation that has arisen. If we are going to talk meaningfully about "what people do", in the sense of how they play out hands or end positions, we can only talk about what people do when they do not claim. The only thing that people who have claimed "do" is argue the validity of their claim with a TD or a committee; they do not play out hands or end positions. I do not see where we can distinguish between "what someone does when they play the hand out" and "what someone might have done had they played the hand out". Herman asks us to decide which plays should be included in the set of "what people would normally do in the situation that has arisen", while simultaneously stipulating that there can be no such set. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 03:36:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BGaBV19805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:36:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BGa3H19782 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:36:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA15374 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:26:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00957 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:26:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:26:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202111626.LAA00957@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > "normal", in the sense of "what is usually done" > "abnormal" in the sense of "what is seldom or never done". > > The algorithm that should then be followed by someone adjudicating a > claim and considering whether a line of play might be admitted as a > basis for score adjustment is then: > > Is this line abnormal? If so, it is not admitted; else > Is this line irrational? If so, it is not admitted; else > This line is admitted. I am not sure how we got here, but I am quite happy with this formulation. It even takes care of Tim's example: for the beginner, failing to repeat the "winning" finesse is certainly abnormal, though arguably rational. I also like the terminology: 'admitted' versus 'not admitted' lines of play. Of course we are left to decide which plays, if any, are discarded as being "abnormal." One way to explain the Tenerife decision is to say that they put "trumps first" in the "abnormal" category. The alternative way to explain their decision is that they decided "trumps first" was irrational. The former explanation may be easier to defend. > From: Ted Ying > This is one contention of the directors in this area, which is why > they try to use the least favorable rule for the offenders wherever > possible. "Offenders?" Maybe Ted was just being careless in his terminology, but I have the feeling that some people think a faulty claim is an infraction. Yes, a claim with no statement is an infraction, but even then we don't want to take "least favorable rule for the offenders" to an extreme. (Remember AKQJ2 opposite T983.) Or at least I hope we don't. > From: Eric Landau > We can translate this, directly from > the footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > irrational? I do not believe there are, but am prepared to change my > mind if someone can come up with a convincing example. Tim's example is a good one: for a beginner, the squeeze line is none of the above. (For an experienced player, it is normal.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 04:02:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BH1m524330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:01:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BH1cH24300 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:01:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-114-90.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.114.90] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16aJgk-0000uW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:52:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c1b31c$3a4a7960$5a727ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:41:24 -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 Eric wrote: > In this context, of course, Eric agrees entirely with Herman that not > all rational lines are normal, but believes, unlike Herman, that all > rational lines *are* frabjous. For those who may have wandered in late, I have suggested that the word "normal" in the footnote is doing double duty. The Laws enjoin a director not to accept from claimer (or consider on claimer's behalf) any successful line of play if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. The footnote says that " 'normal' includes play that would be carless or inferior...but not irrational" (the three dots indicate the omission of reference to the class of player involved, which is not relevant to the present discussion). In order to avoid the confusion created by this overloading of the word "normal", I have suggested that the Laws be read as if they are expanded thus: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play... if there is an alternative frabjous line of play that would be less successful. "Frabjous" includes the normal, the careless, and the inferior, but excludes the irrational. In other posts, I have pointed out that "careless" and "inferior" above must, in order to avoid a contradiction, be restricted to "careless but rational" and "inferior but rational". "Frabjous" plays are thus: plays that a claimer would normally make; plays that a claimer might carelessly make (but are nonetheless "rational"); and plays that a claimer might make if he were playing below his usual standard (but are nonetheless "rational"). I think that I have arrived, in my roundabout and pedantic fashion, at the same point as Grattan when he writes: +=+ It may be timely to point out that the footnote does not define 'normal' - it qualifies 'normal'. +=+ +=+ Should it not occur to us that what this says is to include the careless or inferior in the normal, but that the condition of irrationality shall exclude a matter notwithstanding all else in its nature? Be an action 'normal' or 'careless' or 'inferior', none of these or a combination of these, nonetheless if it be irrational throw it out. The footnote tells us to include actions of certain kinds amongst what is 'normal' but it makes no attempt to define how the balance of normality is to be construed. +=+ This means that, in considering whether to admit a line of play as the basis for score adjustment, a director must reject any line that is abnormal, and any line that is irrational. All other lines, including the normal, the careless and the inferior, are frabjous. Armed with this makeshift and far from trustworthy weapon, we may now examine Eric's postion below. > David has very nicely reframed the debate. Thank you. One does what one can. > Using his lexicon, we can > reduce the issue to the question: Do there exist lines of play which > are rational but not frabjous? That is not quite the issue as I see it. In another post I have set forth an order of prioity that might be used by a director in deciding whether to admit as the basis for score adjustment an alternative line to that proposed by a claimer. That order of priority is this: Is this line abnormal? If so, it is not admitted; else Is this line irrational? If so, it is not admitted; else This line is admitted. Now, this algorithm will exclude from consideration all unfrabjous lines, and leave only frabjous ones (which is what we would like to do). But it implies that a line may be rejected because it is abnormal, *whether or not it is rational*. It was on this basis that the Tenerife AC made its by now justly famous decision. Again, for the benefit of latecomers, the question was in essence this: a declarer with 106 of trumps and sundry winners claimed the balance of the tricks, saying that he would draw a defender's "last" trump. Unfortunately, the defender had two more trumps - the 9 and the 8. Were declarer to play the 6 of trumps after the 10, he would lose several more tricks (and go down in his game); were he instead to embark on the cashing of his winners, preserving the 6 of trumps in case of accidents, he would lose only one more trick to the 9 of trumps (and make his game). The AC ruled that no one would "normally" play another trump after having, in his own mind, drawn the last enemy trump - such a play, *regardless of whether or not it was rational*, was not frabjous because it was not normal. > We can translate this, directly from > the footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > irrational? Indeed there can. For example, suppose someone were to claim as South on lead in this position with spades as trumps: None AKQ2 2 None None None J1098 None 6 None None 65432 2 543 5 None The basis of South's claim is as follows: he knows that all trumps have been drawn; he knows that the six of diamonds is the only diamond that has not been played; but he believes that all of dummy's hearts are winners. He makes no statement, however. Now, to play the two of spades before playing a heart is "rational". It is not careless, nor is it inferior (indeed, it is the opposite of both). But it is not "normal", in that someone who believed the hearts were all winners would "normally" cash them, and then ruff the two of diamonds at trick 13. That is "what everyone does"; were dummy's hearts to consist of AKQJ, there would be something "abnormal" about a declarer who first led his spade to pitch dummy's diamond, and then led a heart. At least, so one might feel, and I would not personally disagree with anyone who so felt. Now, it is important to realise that what the Tenerife AC has done is to say: in this particular case, for this particular declarer, we do not believe that he would "normally" play an extra round of trumps (especially in view of his assertion that the ten of spades would draw the last outstanding trump). It has been said that this is a precedent, which should be binding on other jurisdictions, for the "principle" that it is not normal for any declarer in any circumstances to play what he believes to be a superfluous trump before embarking on the cashing of his winners. I have no objection to the decision of the EBL AC in the particular case. I believe it to have been in accordance with the Laws, and not at variance with the wording whose implications I and others have been struggling over the past few days to clarify. But I and the rest of the EBU L&E consider it highly inappropriate that this particular case should be made the basis of some "trumps last principle" that is applied to all claims in analogous positions. Our position is and remains more or less that articulated by Damian Hassan, who says that for a claimer who thinks that he has the rest of the tricks in top cards, none of which can be ruffed for there are no outstanding trumps, all orders of play of the remaining cards may be admitted as "normal" (and therefore as "frabjous"). 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 Feb 12 04:59:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BHwbR04529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:58:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BHwRH04505 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 04:58:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48037.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.165]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1BHnD817938 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:49:13 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C68042E.3000709@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:49:34 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211110248.00b065d0@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 07:46 AM 2/9/02, Herman wrote: > >> But those are people who are uncertain, and they don't claim. >> People who claim are certain, and so your observation does not help us >> in deciding what people would normally do in the situation that has >> arisen. > > > If we are going to talk meaningfully about "what people do", in the > sense of how they play out hands or end positions, we can only talk > about what people do when they do not claim. The only thing that people > who have claimed "do" is argue the validity of their claim with a TD or > a committee; they do not play out hands or end positions. I do not see > where we can distinguish between "what someone does when they play the > hand out" and "what someone might have done had they played the hand out". > > Herman asks us to decide which plays should be included in the set of > "what people would normally do in the situation that has arisen", while > simultaneously stipulating that there can be no such set. > Exactly, but it is not Herman who asks this, it is the Lawbook. All normal lines must be followed, but what are normal lines. I maintain that something that no-one would do is not a normal line, and the EBLAC has decided thusly. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Tue Feb 12 05:42:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BIfs813255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:41:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BIfjH13223 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:41:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-188-120.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.188.120] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16aLFf-00053K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:32:32 +0000 Message-ID: <005201c1b32a$380a9320$5a727ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211110248.00b065d0@pop.starpower.net> <3C68042E.3000709@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:30:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > All normal lines must be followed, but what are normal lines. > I maintain that something that no-one would do is not a > normal line, and the EBLAC has decided thusly. No, it hasn't. It has decided that on a particular occasion, a particular player would not normally have done something, and it has ruled accordingly. Not that it necessarily should have done so, for it has produced nothing to convince anyone that the player would not carelessly have done something - but if it believed this to be the case, its ruling was correct in a particular instance. But it has no justification at all for attempting to turn this isolated incident into some kind of general principle. 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 Feb 12 06:09:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BJ92o13561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:09:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJ8rH13557 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:08:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aLfx-0005ft-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:59:41 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211125956.00b06430@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:00:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 09:09 AM 2/11/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> >Eric asks: > > > Can there exist lines of play which are none of > > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > > irrational? I do not believe there are, but am prepared to change my > > mind if someone can come up with a convincing example. Let me expand upon this a bit. We start with four overlapping classes of plays whose "frabjousness" is known: (a) Normal plays. By law, these are frabjous. (b) Careless plays, which may or may not also be either normal or inferior, but are not irrational. By law, these are frabjous. (c) Inferior plays, which may or may not also be either normal or careless, but are not irrational. By law, these are frabjous. (d) Irrational plays, which may or may not also be either careless or inferior (by the rules of logic; I personally believe that all irrational plays are necessarily careless and/or inferior, but that doesn't matter for the current purpose). By law, these are not frabjous. Herman, with an assist from David Burn, has proven that stipulating the frabjousness or non-frabjousness of each these four categories as above does not logically preclude the existence of a fifth category: (e) Plays which are not irrational, but which, by law, may nevertheless not be frabjous. If we accept all of the above, which I believe we all do, there remains one question that we still must answer: Are there any plays in category (e)? Under the rules of logic, such plays could exist, but so could seven-legged unicorns; that they logicaly could doesn't mean that they do. I have asked for a convincing example of a play that falls into category (e). >OK, here is an example. Declarer, who has previously successfully >finessed against the HK by leading to HJ and then proceeded to cash >winners ending in hand at this position. > > - > AQ > - > - > >- J >Kx x >- - >- - > > T > x > - > - > >Claims with "and two heart tricks". In case a) we have a not very good >declarer who "knows" that when finesses work once they work twice. This >declarer doesn't really understand how squeezes work (although he knows >they exist and would understand if you explained the position). In case >b) we have a good declarer trying it on to avoid a guess. > >Now we can see that if HK is singleton in E a squeeze has been operated >and thus both finessing and rising are "normal" actions and we award b) >the fewest number of tricks possible on either play (1 on the actual >hand, >0 on the squeeze hand). > >For player a) trying for the drop is certainly not careless, inferior or >irrational. Nor do I think it can be called "normal" - this player and >all those like him are finessing *every* time. So in this case, at >least, >I must rule that playing the drop is "frabjous". To me frabjous also >includes playing suits from bottom up, leading Sx from a holding of >x,AK,-,- (whatever is trumps) unless Spades are trumps and declarer, were >he to be aware of the outstanding trump might consider it a reasonable >possibility that said trump is lower than x. > >I guess Frabjous can be summed up, for me, as "A play that might be made >by a perfectly functioning, but misinformed, computer but that expect the >actual declarer would never* have found had he played on. Tim makes a convincing case that playing for the drop in his two-card ending is neither normal (i.e. in category (a)) nor irrational (i.e. in category (d)). But he also does not place it in category (e) either, because he asserts that it *is* frabjous. That leaves it in either category (b) or (c) or both. Indeed, I believe I could argue directly (rather than, as I have done here, by elimination from Tim's premises) that it will always fall into categories (b) and/or (c) for any class of player, but, as it is not pertinent to the point at hand, I will not do so here in the hope of getting through this thread without developing carpal tunnel syndrome. So Tim's analysis, while interesting, and perhaps a suitable subject for a different debate, is not responsive to the question I am asking. Had he produced the same argument, then concluded by asserting that playing for the drop was *not* frabjous, that would have been responsive, and we would have a point of difference about which to argue. As it is, the position he sets forth above, and the position which I have been taking in my exchanges with Herman, are entirely consistent with one another. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 06:35:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BJZNI13582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:35:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1BJZFH13578 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:35:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1BJQ2A00679 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:26:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211125956.00b06430@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > That leaves it in either > category (b) or (c) or both. The play I chose was intended to be neither of the above. Assume for a moment that East is inferentially (to a good player) slightly more likely to have HK on the auction/play so far (I should have stipulated that previously I guess). Playing the squeeze would be both well-considered and superior. Surely there is no "normal" definition of careless/inferior into which we can squeeze a technically well executed play. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 06:49:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BJn3913599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:49:04 +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 g1BJmgH13595 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJcar24532; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:38:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:40:06 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211125956.00b06430@pop.starpower.net> 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 02:00 PM 2/11/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Let me expand upon this a bit. We start with four overlapping classes of >plays whose "frabjousness" is known: > >(a) Normal plays. By law, these are frabjous. ***pedant mode on*** David Burn has asserted that, and so have you. It is false. There is nothing in the law that says that normal plays are or are not frabjous. If "frabjous" replaces "normal" in the body of the law, then the footnote that _explicitly_ references the passage [complete with quotation marks] must obviously be referring to the same word. Hence, there is nothing in the law to tell us anything about whether 'typical' [dictionary-normal] plays are frabjous or not. ***pedant mode off*** >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 06:55:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BJtG613611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:55:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJr5H13607 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJfar26355; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:41:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211134126.00a55ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:42:41 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211125956.00b06430@pop.starpower.net> 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 02:00 PM 2/11/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:09 AM 2/11/02, twm wrote: >>OK, here is an example. Declarer, who has previously successfully >>finessed against the HK by leading to HJ and then proceeded to cash >>winners ending in hand at this position. >> >> - >> AQ >> - >> - >> >>- J >>Kx x >>- - >>- - >> >> T >> x >> - >> - >> >>Claims with "and two heart tricks". In case a) we have a not very good >>declarer who "knows" that when finesses work once they work twice. This >>declarer doesn't really understand how squeezes work (although he knows >>they exist and would understand if you explained the position). In case >>b) we have a good declarer trying it on to avoid a guess. >> >>Now we can see that if HK is singleton in E a squeeze has been operated >>and thus both finessing and rising are "normal" actions and we award b) >>the fewest number of tricks possible on either play (1 on the actual hand, >>0 on the squeeze hand). >> >>For player a) trying for the drop is certainly not careless, inferior or >>irrational. Nor do I think it can be called "normal" - this player and >>all those like him are finessing *every* time. So in this case, at least, >>I must rule that playing the drop is "frabjous". To me frabjous also >>includes playing suits from bottom up, leading Sx from a holding of >>x,AK,-,- (whatever is trumps) unless Spades are trumps and declarer, were >>he to be aware of the outstanding trump might consider it a reasonable >>possibility that said trump is lower than x. >> >>I guess Frabjous can be summed up, for me, as "A play that might be made >>by a perfectly functioning, but misinformed, computer but that expect the >>actual declarer would never* have found had he played on. > >Tim makes a convincing case that playing for the drop in his two-card >ending is neither normal (i.e. in category (a)) nor irrational (i.e. in >category (d)). But he also does not place it in category (e) either, >because he asserts that it *is* frabjous. That leaves it in either >category (b) or (c) or both. Indeed, I believe I could argue directly >(rather than, as I have done here, by elimination from Tim's premises) >that it will always fall into categories (b) and/or (c) for any class of >player, but, as it is not pertinent to the point at hand, I will not do so >here in the hope of getting through this thread without developing carpal >tunnel syndrome. > >So Tim's analysis, while interesting, and perhaps a suitable subject for a >different debate, is not responsive to the question I am asking. Had he >produced the same argument, then concluded by asserting that playing for >the drop was *not* frabjous, that would have been responsive, and we would >have a point of difference about which to argue. As it is, the position >he sets forth above, and the position which I have been taking in my >exchanges with Herman, are entirely consistent with one another. OK. Suppose that I assert that Tim's play is not frabjous for the poorer declarer. At the risk of inducing carpal tunnel, how do you prove that it is? >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 07:01:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BK1CK13627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:01:12 +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 g1BJwtH13619 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:58:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJnGr00669; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:49:31 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211113414.00a3db20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:50:44 -0600 To: Herman De Wael From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <3C650B06.7030202@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:41 PM 2/9/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> >>> No-one does this !!! >> >>This isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because people make wildly >>irrational plays all of the time. That's why we have reached a consensus >>here that whatever "normal" might mean, it doesn't mean "what people >>do". I very much doubt that there is any error that is possible at the >>game of bridge, no matter how ridiculously absurd, that has never been >>committed by someone at some time. > >No Eric, that is not true. Every once in a while, someone revokes, yet >revokes are not considered normal in deciding upon claims. So your >argument is invalid. No, it isn't. Eric's point is that the set of 'plays that no-one makes' is pretty much empty. People do all sort of horrendously stupid things all the time. I will bet that if you had hand records you would find that one night in Tuskaloosa someone once held exactly the same cards as the declarer in Tenerife, said that he was drawing the last trump, and then went ahead and played the 6 next. And then there was the time when the guy in Timbuktu played the 6 of trumps first, and the time the guy in Tilatjap played the 10, had a side 'winner' ruffed, and was so shocked by the appearance of the second trump he forgot to trump the return and lost another trick. There is nothing new under the sun. I agree that: a) If no-one ever makes a play, then it's not frabjous. But since the antecedent is empty, this principle is worthless. I will not agree that: b) If no-one _typically_ makes a play, then it's not frabjous. This is too lenient on most claimers, although I could accept it if the WBFLC were to adopt it, since it at least makes some sense--we give claimer what he _probably_ would have gotten. What you seem to want, Herman, and what David Burn is suggesting you say, is: c) If no-one typically makes a play, then it's not frabjous, unless it's a _bad_ [careless or inferior] play, in which case it is. This is certainly a possible interpretation of the law, but it is an interpretation of the law that has absolutely nothing to recommend it that I can see. Why would we want to rule that uncommon but perfectly good plays don't count against declarer, but uncommon bad plays do? Put it another way: if the goal of claim adjudication is to give declarer roughly what he would have gotten had he played the hand out, then that's a reason to ignore atypical lines [since he probably wouldn't have followed them], but it is a reason to ignore _all_ atypical lines, including the careless or inferior ones, and it is a reason to force declarer into irrational lines if we think he would have taken them. So the Tenerife rule is philosophically incompatible with the ruling that says that we never allow illegal plays in claim rulings even if we're virtually certain the most people in this claimer's place would, in fact, make them. It is also philosophically inconsistent with the footnote's inclusion of careless and inferior plays, which are clearly not normal. ["Philosophically incompatible". I did not say "contradictory".] {I can handle claimers who try to argue that a line is so bad that it's _irrational_, and so they shouldn't be forced into it. I wait now for the time when a declarer tries to argue that a certain line is so good that it's _rational_ and not _inferior_, and therefore we shouldn't hold him to it!} Or, if the goal of claim law is to give declarer the worst line that he could legally have taken, excluding only the crazy ones, then the Tenerife decision violates the goal of the law. >Look Eric, you have not convinced me or anyone else that the EBLAC has >gone against the Law. This is a gray area, and the world could do with >some consensus. Let it rest. I have been convinced now that the law is so vaguely worded that this decision doesn't contradict it. I think the decision is either worthless as a precedent [because it applies only to declarers in exactly the position and state of mind as that one], or else philosophically indefensible. I don't want consensus at the cost of incoherence. PLEASE GIVE ME SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF CLAIM LAW THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AS WRITTEN, THE TENERIFE DECISION, AND THE RULING THAT NO ILLEGAL PLAYS ARE EVER ALLOWED. Please, someone. Because frankly I now have no clue which lines I'm supposed to consider. I am serious about this...I'm not just making trouble. Let me put it another way. Many people [indeed, as best I can tell, everyone on the face of the earth except me] want some official body to make the gray area less gray by providing guidelines. But such guidelines have no real value unless there's some reason for drawing the lines where they're drawn. It does us no good to say "never consider lines that involve playing the 9 of diamonds at trick 8". If you think that it's a fact that declarers who are absolutely certain that all trumps are out to such a degree that they will _never_ try to catch a lurker will never play a trump before a non-trump, and if you think this fact is relevant to claim adjudication, then you must explain _why_ it's relevant to claim adjudication. _Why_ should we exclude 'rational but atypical lines'? What purpose does excluding them serve? Why does including careless and inferior lines not abrogate that purpose? Until someone answers questions like that, you'll never satisfy me [or Eric, I'd guess, despite other differences he and I have]. I'm not sure I agree with the factual claim, but even if I stipulate it I need to have the theoretical claim explained. >>Excuse me? I say that I am waiting for someone to tell me what the >>reasoning behind the EBLAC attempt to "settle[] it" was, and Herman tells >>me to pretend that someone already has. I think I'll keep waiting for a >>bit longer. If the "justification given" Herman refers to is his >>statement above that, "No-one does this !!!", I believe that to be a >>factual error. > > >How can you say that ! >Give this hand to a beginner and have him play until trick 13. Eric and I are absolutely convinced that _some_ precentage of the time the beginner will play the second trump. I think it might even be more than 50% of the time. I am assuming you tell the beginner "there is only one trump left out". If you tell him "there's probably only one small trump left out, but there might be two" then I agree that the beginner will hardly ever play both trumps...but this is the very state of mind you tell me the Tenerife claimer wasn't in. >>Exactly. Since it's too hard at this point to try to find it by >>proposing a line and debating whether it's the right one -- we've tried >>that, without success -- the next best way is to do what we're doing: >>examine individual cases and decide which side of the line they fall >>on. If we do this with enough cases, we should wind up with a pretty >>good idea of where the line goes. > >That's exactly what the EBLAC has done. And then you go and argue that the >Law says they are wrong. Eric and I think you have to draw the lines _coherently_. If I were to draw a line at playing the 9 or diamonds at trick 8 that would not help reduce the gray area...it would only confuse things. The Tenerife AC has confused Eric, me, and apparently some other people as well. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 07:07:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BK7Zv13640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:07:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BK7QH13636 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:07:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aMac-0000l3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211140757.00aa78c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:58:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C67E8EB.8020803@village.uunet.be> References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211085619.00aa5120@pop.starpower.net> 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 2/11/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Admittedly, the above point was rather off the track, so I'm not >>surprised if Herman or others were confused. It is not critical, or >>even, IMO, relevant, to the point of the debate. I was merely >>pointing out that if Herman believes that "no-one does this!!!", he >>is wrong with respect to a standard which he apparently believes >>matters, notwithstanding that I do not. > >No, quite the contrary. If something that sometimes happens is >considered non-frabjous (revokes), then something that never happens >can surely be a criterion for non-frabjousness. Herman argues that if a revoke, which sometimes happens, is considered non-frabjous, then playing ace first (in the position under discussion), which never happens, should therefore be considered non-frabjous. If this statement were logically true, then so would be... If man murdering his wife somewhere on Earth, which sometimes happens, is considered illegal, then a man kissing his wife somewhere on Mars, which never happens, should therefore be considered illegal. Herman believes that ace first should be considered non-frabjous, a conclusion which would indeed follow from his two stated premises if we accept them. The first is a logical premise, and is the one he restates above. The second is a factual premise, namely that ace first never happens. The main thrust of my rationale for not accepting Herman's conclusion is that his first premise is incorrect (indeed, that it is absurd, as the above analogy suggests). The point which Herman disputes above, which has nothing to do with the main thrust of my argument, is that even if I were to accept his first premise as logically correct, I still could not accept his second premise as factually correct, and would therefore still not accept his conclusion. That his second premise is factually incorrect has already been established; I am not the only one who has made the point that we have seen it happen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 08:07:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BL6wc19560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:06:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BL6mH19536 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:06:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aNW3-00047M-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:57:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:58:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C67E836.3020700@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I admit that this is getting a bit frustrating. My apologies if my frustration comes through too blatantly below. At 10:50 AM 2/11/02, Herman wrote: >Well Eric, how about the Tenerife case ? Well, Herman, how about the Tenerife case? We are discussing the Tenerife case. Tenerife is not the Throne Room of the Lord, and there is no reason why a decision made by one committee in Tenerife, unlike every other decision made by every other committee anywhere, should be out of bounds for discussion in this forum. >And don't say that it is not convincing. 4 eminent people were convinced. Even if *every eminent authority in the world* were convinced of something, that would not make it true, else the Earth would not only be in the center of the universe, but would be flat to boot. Herman, you insult everyone on this list when you persist in repeatedly advancing the argument that you are right because the Tenerife committee is an eminent authority and they say so. Such assertions have no place in this forum. One can reasonably cite the opinions of eminent authorities to support the credibility of one's position, but one cannot claim that they prove anything. >Look, we've told you there is no reason to believe that the set of >rational, non-frabjous plays is not empty, and there is even an >example at hand. Why not accept this and move on? See above. The Pope tells me that, as I am a Jew, I shall surely fry in Hell. Why do I not accept this and move on? Because I do not believe it, any more than I believe that the Tenerife committee is any more eminent or any more of an authority than the Pope. This is the last time I shall lower myself to writing a rebuttal to an argument which says nothing more than that something is true because x-number of eminent authorities says so. >And if you really want another example, how about the ACBL-guideline >that suits are played top-down. You might argue that there is nothing >irrational about bottom-up. >Another example of a rational play that is considered non-frabjous by >some. How about the ACBL guideline? You claim this as an example of a rational play that is considered non-frabjous by some, but the ACBL, quite clearly and explicitly, claims that it is an example of an irrational play that must therefore be considered non-frabjous by law. Yes, Herman, you can make a case that they might be wrong, you might even be able to make a convincing case that they are wrong, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with your point. I am certain that if you asked the ACBLLC, "If, hypothetically, you did not believe that playing suits top-down were irrational, would you still tell us not to consider the possibility that they might be played other than top down when adjudicating claims?", the answer would be a unanimous and resounding "no". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 08:57:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BLuj829518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:56:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BLuaH29492 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:56:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aOIF-0005zL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:47:23 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211161504.00b0db80@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:47:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202111626.LAA00957@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM 2/11/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > We can translate this, directly from > > the footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of > > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > > irrational? I do not believe there are, but am prepared to change my > > mind if someone can come up with a convincing example. > >Tim's example is a good one: for a beginner, the squeeze line is none >of the above. (For an experienced player, it is normal.) If we believe that whether a particular play falls into any of the above categories depends on the class of player involved (as Steve must, else his last sentence is meaningless), that means that we must judge beginners by standards appropriate to beginners. Tim's beginner cannot imagine that anyone would duck the offside king twice. By that "beginner-level standard", once he has won the finesse twice, there is no possibility that he will not win it on on his third try. For him, the "squeeze line" (i.e. going up with the ace in the end position) cannot win. A play that cannot win, in a situation in which an alternative play might (or, even more so, as here, presumptively always will) win is, by anybody's definition, an "inferior" play. Now Steve, unlike Tim, might be prepared to allow this beginner, who has misclaimed, to take the rest of the tricks, as one might easily conclude from the above analysis that for a beginner who believes that going up with the ace can never win, to do so is not only inferior but irrational, which would make it non-frabjous. I do not take a position here as to whether such a play should be considered careless but not irrational, therefore frabjous, or irrational, therefore not frabjous, but neither position is inconsistent with my assertion that it should not be considered to be simultaneously inferior, not irrational, and not frabjous. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 08:58:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BLwKI29846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:58:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1BLwBH29815 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:58:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1BLmrO07627 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:48:53 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202112148.g1BLmrO07627@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:48:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 11, 2002 09:26:53 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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:26:53 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > > Hello Ted, we are close to agreeing now. > TY: Possibly. However, we still have a significant difference of opinion. > Ted Ying wrote: > > > > What I really believe that is that the world is split between people > > whose normal play is trumps first out of fear that they miscounted > > and people whose normal play is trumps last, which is where the > > controversy comes. Just like you can't determine whether everyone > > is pro-choice or pro-life. It doesn't happen. What you are trying > > to do is define normal for everyone when normal can vary. So, what > > I assert is that you should be able to define the ruling without having > > to define that a certain line of play is normal when the opposite is > > quite normal for a significant subset of players. > > > > This is one contention of the directors in this area, which is why > > they try to use the least favorable rule for the offenders wherever > > possible. It is then up to the defenders to justify it to an AC > > if they think they have a reasonable argument. > > > Now don't you see, Ted, that it is not good for the sport of > bridge if the TD's in some areas (England, Norway, where you > are) will rule one way and other TD's rule a different way ? > TY: Yes, however, what you don't agree with me on is that there are groups of player for which trumps first is normal and other players for which trumps last is normal. Hence, defining trumps first or last arbitrarily is unfair to one group or the other. That is much like saying that a flight C player gets a different ruling from a flight A player simply because some august body decides that the flight C player would not make the same play as the flight A player, even if it is possible that the flight C player is capable of said play. It isn't fair, it's purely arbitrary. My contention is that you should avoid an arbitrary ruling of "normal" where possible and award least favorable result for the offender (and failure to state a line of play when claiming is a violation of law and hence the person can be deemed an offender). > OK, we've agreed to disagree. We cannot clearly, by the > Lawbook, if this play is normal or not. Now a very abled > body (including only 2 WBFLC members !) has created a > precedent by which it may become easier to rule in a similar > manner in future. Why then should one not accept this ? > TY: The problem as I see it with accepting the Tennerife decision as precedent was that it wasn't intended to be such when decided. From what I've garnered, the Tennerife committee decided in a certain way based on mitigating circumstances for a particular group of 4 players, not to be confused with a generic sense that would set precedent for all players. Yes, and I athink you are correct that we should all rule one way, but an arbitrary decision of which is normal and which is not for pulling trumps first or last is neither fair, nor should it become a standard by which to measure. Or, if we are going to have a standard that we measure all players by, then we should use the more cautious method of trumps first. I think the trumps last is an arbitrarily unfair assumption to be made and used as a 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 Tue Feb 12 09:14:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BMDpC01039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:13:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BMDhH01035 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:13:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA11281 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01431 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:04:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:04:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202112204.RAA01431@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > Or, if > we are going to have a standard that we measure all players > by, then we should use the more cautious method of trumps > first. This is explicitly forbidden by L70C. If we are going to have a single rule about whether trumps are played first or last, it has to say "trumps last." Of course there is no consensus on whether a general rule is possible or even whether it's desirable. Quite a few people think 'whatever is worst for the claimer' is the proper rule. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 12 10:11:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1BNBTR09966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:11:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BNBJH09935 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:11:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aPSY-0005uF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:02:06 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020211170019.00b0e6f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:02:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <001301c1b31c$3a4a7960$5a727ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 AM 2/11/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > In this context, of course, Eric agrees entirely with Herman that not > > all rational lines are normal, but believes, unlike Herman, that all > > rational lines *are* frabjous. > >For those who may have wandered in late, I have suggested that the word >"normal" in the footnote is doing double duty. The Laws enjoin a >director not to accept from claimer (or consider on claimer's behalf) >any successful line of play if there is an alternative normal line of >play that would be less successful. The footnote says that " 'normal' >includes play that would be carless or inferior...but not irrational" >(the three dots indicate the omission of reference to the class of >player involved, which is not relevant to the present discussion). > >In order to avoid the confusion created by this overloading of the word >"normal", I have suggested that the Laws be read as if they are expanded >thus: > >The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of >play... if there is an alternative frabjous line of play that would be >less successful. "Frabjous" includes the normal, the careless, and the >inferior, but excludes the irrational. > >In other posts, I have pointed out that "careless" and "inferior" above >must, in order to avoid a contradiction, be restricted to "careless but >rational" and "inferior but rational". "Frabjous" plays are thus: plays >that a claimer would normally make; plays that a claimer might >carelessly make (but are nonetheless "rational"); and plays that a >claimer might make if he were playing below his usual standard (but are >nonetheless "rational"). I think that I have arrived, in my roundabout >and pedantic fashion, at the same point as Grattan when he writes: > >+=+ It may be timely to point out that the footnote does not define >'normal' - it qualifies 'normal'. +=+ > >+=+ Should it not occur to us that what this says is to include the >careless or inferior in the normal, but that the condition of >irrationality shall exclude a matter notwithstanding all else in its >nature? Be an action 'normal' or 'careless' or 'inferior', none of >these or a combination of these, nonetheless if it >be irrational throw it out. > >The footnote tells us to include actions of certain kinds amongst what >is 'normal' but it makes no attempt to define how the balance of >normality is to be construed. +=+ Grattan appropriately warns us not to take our convenient substitution of "frabjous" for "'normal'" too literally. If the law really said "'frabjous' includes play that would be careless or inferior...", it would be normal (pardon my using this word) to read this as meaning that a frabjous play is, by definition, either careless or inferior. As the law actually says "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior...", it would seem normal to read this, as (Grattan and I, and, I'm confident, all of us believe) it was intended, to say that "normal" includes play that is careless or inferior, even if we would not normally (oops; I did it again!) consider it normal, in addition to play that we would always consider normal. The former notwithstanding, we must take care to understand that we are using "frabjous" here in the latter sense. I have no problem with this, indeed, had assumed throughout that it was obvious. >This means that, in considering whether to admit a line of play as the >basis for score adjustment, a director must reject any line that is >abnormal, and any line that is irrational. All other lines, including >the normal, the careless and the inferior, are frabjous. > >Armed with this makeshift and far from trustworthy weapon, we may now >examine Eric's postion below. > > > David has very nicely reframed the debate. > >Thank you. One does what one can. > > > Using his lexicon, we can > > reduce the issue to the question: Do there exist lines of play which > > are rational but not frabjous? > >That is not quite the issue as I see it. In another post I have set >forth an order of prioity that might be used by a director in deciding >whether to admit as the basis for score adjustment an alternative line >to that proposed by a claimer. That order of priority is this: > >Is this line abnormal? If so, it is not admitted; else >Is this line irrational? If so, it is not admitted; else >This line is admitted. I think we are addressing the same issue. If a line can be rational without being frabjous by virtue of its being abnormal, we need David's entire algorithm to determine what to admit; that is Herman's position. If it cannot be, David's first test is redundant; that is my position. A line will be admitted by my test if and only if it is admitted by his, and the question of whether it is abnormal is immaterial to any decision and need not be considered. >Now, this algorithm will exclude from consideration all unfrabjous >lines, and leave only frabjous ones (which is what we would like to do). >But it implies that a line may be rejected because it is abnormal, >*whether or not it is rational*. It was on this basis that the Tenerife >AC made its by now justly famous decision. > >Again, for the benefit of latecomers, the question was in essence this: >a declarer with 106 of trumps and sundry winners claimed the balance of >the tricks, saying that he would draw a defender's "last" trump. >Unfortunately, the defender had two more trumps - the 9 and the 8. Were >declarer to play the 6 of trumps after the 10, he would lose several >more tricks (and go down in his game); were he instead to embark on the >cashing of his winners, preserving the 6 of trumps in case of accidents, >he would lose only one more trick to the 9 of trumps (and make his >game). The AC ruled that no one would "normally" play another trump >after having, in his own mind, drawn the last enemy trump - such a play, >*regardless of whether or not it was rational*, was not frabjous because >it was not normal. > > > We can translate this, directly from > > the footnote, into: Can there exist lines of play which are none of > > the following: (a) normal, (b) careless, (c) inferior, (d) > > irrational? > >Indeed there can. For example, suppose someone were to claim as South on >lead in this position with spades as trumps: > > None > AKQ2 > 2 > None >None None >J1098 None >6 None >None 65432 > 2 > 543 > 5 > None > >The basis of South's claim is as follows: he knows that all trumps have >been drawn; he knows that the six of diamonds is the only diamond that >has not been played; but he believes that all of dummy's hearts are >winners. He makes no statement, however. I assume we all agree that had declarer claimed with the statement "I know the D5 is not high, and I know that the H2 may not be high yet, but one of them will be shortly, and I shall take the rest of the tricks", we would award him the rest of the tricks, notwithstanding that he has not specified a line of play, because we would find it normal for a player who knows enough to have made such a statement to play the S2 first. >Now, to play the two of spades before playing a heart is "rational". It >is not careless, nor is it inferior (indeed, it is the opposite of >both). But it is not "normal", in that someone who believed the hearts >were all winners would "normally" cash them, and then ruff the two of >diamonds at trick 13. That is "what everyone does"; were dummy's hearts >to consist of AKQJ, there would be something "abnormal" about a declarer >who first led his spade to pitch dummy's diamond, and then led a heart. >At least, so one might feel, and I would not personally disagree with >anyone who so felt. But this declarer believes that his hearts are already running. I can imagine only two reasons why he might incorrectly hold this belief: (1) He has miscounted; although only two hearts have been discarded, he believes he has seen three (or more) hearts discarded. Now we might or might not consider it normal to miscount a hand, but miscounting a hand, whether normal or not, is certainly "careless... but not irrational". If this were not so, we would be forced to adjudicate all faulty claims on the presumption that the claimer, in the absense of a statement indicating to the contrary, had counted the hand correctly up to the point of the claim, which we do not do. (2) He knows there are four hearts outstanding, but has not considered the possibility that they might break 4-0. To overlook the possibility 4-0 is not normal; it is, I contend, indisputably careless. If we believe it is "irrational", we don't consider it, and presume (1). If we believe it is "careless... but not irrational" we can presume either (1) or (2); which we choose won't affect our decision. For David to conclude that this position provides the counter-example I have asked for, he must assert that both (1) miscounting a hand is not careless, and (2) failing to consider that four cards might break 4-0 is not careless. I don't believe that he would actually agree to both of those, but I could be wrong. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 12 11:45:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C0ih528617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:43 +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-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 g1C0iUH28589 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.205] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16aQq6-000Jeq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:30:31 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01c1b35d$85899000$cd43e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:36:26 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > I admit that this is getting a bit frustrating. My apologies if > my frustration comes through too blatantly below. > +=+ I share a sense of frustration, as of a traveller on a train that has been sidetracked +=+ > > > And don't say that it is not convincing. 4 eminent people > > were convinced. > +=+ I find the term distasteful and, if it were true, irrelevant. The committee could claim to be experienced, broadly competent, and chaired by a hawk. +=+ > > Even if *every eminent authority in the world* were convinced > of something, that would not make it true, else the Earth > would not only be in the center of the universe, but would be > flat to boot. > +=+ You say it is not flat? At the centre of the universe it is not - that place is occupied by blml. +=+ > > See above. The Pope tells me that, as I am a Jew, I shall > surely fry in Hell. Why do I not accept this and move on? > Because I do not believe it, any more than I believe that > the Tenerife committee is any more eminent or any more > of an authority than the Pope. > +=+ It is perhaps slightly unwise to be overconfident (as a number of popes will confirm should you join them) +=+ > > I am certain that if you asked the ACBLLC, "If, hypothetically, > you did not believe that playing suits top-down were irrational, > would you still tell us not to consider the possibility that they > might be played other than top down when adjudicating > claims?", the answer would be a unanimous and resounding > "no". > +=+ I haven't quite parsed that to my satisfaction, but it may be asserted that a player who believes all his cards are high is no more compelled to play his side suits after his trumps than to play his suits from the top down. If the latter 'normality' may be ordered when every card has the same value, so may be ordered the 'normality' of retention of trumps to the end. ~ 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 Feb 12 11:45:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C0ifg28612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g1C0iSH28580 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.205] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16aQq5-000Jeq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:30:29 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c1b35d$848dcae0$cd43e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211110248.00b065d0@pop.starpower.net> <3C68042E.3000709@village.uunet.be> <005201c1b32a$380a9320$5a727ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:17:38 -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: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Herman wrote: > > > All normal lines must be followed, but what are normal lines. > > I maintain that something that no-one would do is not a > > normal line, and the EBLAC has decided thusly. > > No, it hasn't. It has decided that on a particular occasion, a > particular player would not normally have done something, and > it has ruled accordingly. Not that it necessarily should have > done so, for it has produced nothing to convince anyone that > the player would not carelessly have done something - but if > it believed this to be the case, its ruling was correct in a > particular instance. But it has no justification at all for > attempting to turn this isolated incident into some kind of > general principle. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I certainly do not think the EBLAC had any intention of stating a general principle. I think it is empowered to say "In this case we found that to play the last trump before the side suits would be abnormal to the point of being irrational for the player concerned. Other ACs may like (or maybe, in Europe, 'are entitled') to bear this finding in mind for its potential influence when considering the circumstances of other individual appeals in similar circumstances". ~ 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 Feb 12 17:14:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C6DY203947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:13:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1C6DOH03927 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:13:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-183-64.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.183.64] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16aW2y-0003w0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:04:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:52:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > >(a) Normal plays. By law, these are frabjous. > > ***pedant mode on*** > David Burn has asserted that, and so have you. It is > false. Of course it is. There is nothing that is "truly" frabjous. The word was introduced merely as a device to overcome some initial confusion arising from the perceived overloading of the word "normal" in the footnote. This overloading comes about only because, as Grattan says, the footnote is supposed to be a qualification rather than a redefinition of the English word "normal", and some ambiguity arises thereby. > There is nothing in the law that says that normal > plays are or are not frabjous. That is strictly true. However, if "frabjous" is interpreted as "those plays that should be admitted for the purposes of score adjustment in adjudicating a claim", then it is at least possible to define "frabjous" plays as "normal, or careless, or inferior, but not irrational". We further say (or at least, Grattan and Herman further say) that the first of those criteria is a necessary one - for a play to be frabjous, it must be normal; no abnormal play can be frabjous, whatever other attributes it may possess. If we make those temporary assumptions, then there *is* something in the law that says that normal plays are frabjous, which helps at least some of us to understand what is going on. > If "frabjous" replaces > "normal" in the body of the law, then the footnote that > _explicitly_ references the passage [complete with quotation > marks] must obviously be referring to the same word. Quite so. > Hence, > there is nothing in the law to tell us anything about whether > 'typical' [dictionary-normal] plays are frabjous or not. That is also true, and it was to overcome this difficulty that the word "frabjous" was pressed into service. There is nothing in the law at present to tell us whether 'typical' plays are normal or not - indeed, a literal reading of the law would indicate that they are not. This is a pity, for it has led to some confusion. In effect, the position I have reached in my own thinking is this. A claim arises, and an adjudication is called for. The claimer's opponents say: "If claimer followed line X, he would make fewer tricks than he has claimed, and he has made no statement to the effect that he will not follow line X." It is ascertained that the claimer has indeed made no statement that precludes line X. He asserts that he would not in practice follow line X. This is tantamount to (and usually accompanied by) a statement that he would follow some other line Y to arrive at the number of tricks he has claimed. The director must therefore decide whether to adjust the score on the basis that the claimer might actually follow line X. If he so decides, then (per L70D) he does not permit line Y, for line X is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. To do this, he considers whether (a) Line X is irrational. In that case, he rules that the claimer would not follow it (for the Law says that no irrational line is normal, and that the director must consider only normal lines). Otherwise, he considers whether (b) Line X is abnormal. In that case, he rules that the claimer would not follow it (for the Law says that the director must consider only normal lines). Otherwise, the director should rule that the claimer would in fact follow line X, and make an adjustment on that basis. Now, the impact of the footnote is that no line of play may be considered so careless, or so inferior, as to be regarded as abnormal. All careless and all inferior plays are normal (provided that they are rational) - so says the law. But it has been asserted that a play may be dismissed as abnormal not because it is careless or inferior, but because it is "atypical", and thus the question of its carelessness or inferiority does not arise. In particular, it has been asserted that, in the case of a claimer with what he believes to be the last trump and several side winners, to play the trump before any (or all) of the other winners is atypical behaviour, and thus an objection to his claim on the grounds that he might follow such a line cannot be sustained. My position thus far is that I believe this to be a standpoint that is not contrary to the Laws. I personally believe it to be a foolish and dangerous notion, and I am horrified to discover that a ruling based upon it might set a precedent that my NBO could become bound to follow. I do not mind if some declarer convinces a group of kind-hearted holidaymakers that he really wouldn't ever have played his trump until trick 13, nor do I mind if he also sells them shares in his brother's Guatemalan oil well. But, if it's all the same to you, I'm not buying. 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 Feb 12 18:03:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C72pZ06091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:02:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1C72hH06087 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:02:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-121-189.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.121.189] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16aWoi-0006ho-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:53:28 +0000 Message-ID: <005e01c1b391$b97a14a0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202112148.g1BLmrO07627@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:51:00 -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 Ted wrote: [HdW] > > Now don't you see, Ted, that it is not good for the sport of > > bridge if the TD's in some areas (England, Norway, where you > > are) will rule one way and other TD's rule a different way ? By George, he's got it! Yes, Herman, that would be an appalling idea. But don't *you* see from the contributions to this thread that the substantial majority would be happy, or at least comfortable, with the position that if a man thinks all his cards are high, no order in which he might play them can be considered either irrational or abnormal? Whereas there is a great deal of discomfort, and rightly so, with the position that "trumps last" should be considered the only normal, or rational, way to play. If there is going to be a single way to rule on such positions - and it is highly desirable that there should be - then rulings should be given on the basis that since both "trumps first" and "trumps last" are "normal" (in the sense of "typical" or "what people sometimes do"), both lines should be admitted, and the line most disadvantageous to claimer should be used as the basis for score adjustment. Cases such as the Tenerife judgement should be the rare exception, and not the norm. > TY: Yes, however, what you don't agree with me on is that there > are groups of player for which trumps first is normal > and other players for which trumps last is normal. Hence, > defining trumps first or last arbitrarily is unfair to > one group or the other. Someone buy that man a drink. > My contention is that you should avoid an arbitrary > ruling of "normal" where possible and award least favorable > result for the offender (and failure to state a line of > play when claiming is a violation of law and hence the person > can be deemed an offender). Someone else buy that man another drink. > > OK, we've agreed to disagree. We cannot clearly, by the > > Lawbook, if this play is normal or not. Now a very abled > > body (including only 2 WBFLC members !) has created a > > precedent by which it may become easier to rule in a similar > > manner in future. Why then should one not accept this ? Because it's crazy. It's so crazy that I foolishly devoted much time to attempting to prove it illegal, probably because I thought that it simply had to be. It isn't actually illegal, as I may or may not have succeeded in showing. But it's still crazy. In keeping with the line of argument that has been developed in relation to claims, this "precedent" should be dismissed on the grounds that it is irrational, without bothering to consider whether or not it is careless or inferior. > Yes, and I think you are correct that we should all rule one > way, but an arbitrary decision of which is normal and which > is not for pulling trumps first or last is neither fair, > nor should it become a standard by which to measure. Or, if > we are going to have a standard that we measure all players > by, then we should use the more cautious method of trumps > first. I think the trumps last is an arbitrarily unfair > assumption to be made and used as a standard. He's probably got enough drinks already by now. But just in case, I'll buy him one myself. 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 Feb 12 20:49:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C9nH727221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:49:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1C9n7H27190 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:49:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47783.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.167]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1C9da811671 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:39:36 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C68E2EF.7000809@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:39:59 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 02:00 PM 2/11/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Let me expand upon this a bit. We start with four overlapping classes >> of plays whose "frabjousness" is known: >> >> (a) Normal plays. By law, these are frabjous. > > > ***pedant mode on*** > David Burn has asserted that, and so have you. It is > false. There is nothing in the law that says that normal > plays are or are not frabjous. If "frabjous" replaces > "normal" in the body of the law, then the footnote that > _explicitly_ references the passage [complete with quotation > marks] must obviously be referring to the same word. Hence, > there is nothing in the law to tell us anything about whether > 'typical' [dictionary-normal] plays are frabjous or not. > ***pedant mode off*** > I also object to this double meaning of the word "normal". Let us call these plays "good" plays. They are of course frabjous. >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- 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 Feb 12 20:52:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C9qUC27880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1C9qLH27852 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:52:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47783.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.167]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1C9h1815430 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:43:01 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C68E3BC.3000300@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:43:24 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020211113414.00a3db20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant, you are confusing me. Consider this as a reply saying that you are incorrect. But I don't have time to go into details. Suffice it to say that I consider a "bad" play, that no-one would typically do, also non-frabjous. David, you've started something. I wonder how long it will be before I use the word frabjous at a table. Grant Sterling wrote: > At 12:41 PM 2/9/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>>> No-one does this !!! >>> >>> >>> This isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because people make wildly >>> irrational plays all of the time. That's why we have reached a >>> consensus here that whatever "normal" might mean, it doesn't mean >>> "what people do". I very much doubt that there is any error that is >>> possible at the game of bridge, no matter how ridiculously absurd, >>> that has never been committed by someone at some time. >> >> >> No Eric, that is not true. Every once in a while, someone revokes, yet >> revokes are not considered normal in deciding upon claims. So your >> argument is invalid. > > > No, it isn't. > Eric's point is that the set of 'plays that no-one makes' > is pretty much empty. People do all sort of horrendously stupid > things all the time. I will bet that if you had hand records > you would find that one night in Tuskaloosa someone once held exactly > the same cards as the declarer in Tenerife, said that he was > drawing the last trump, and then went ahead and played the 6 next. > And then there was the time when the guy in Timbuktu played > the 6 of trumps first, and the time the guy in Tilatjap > played the 10, had a side 'winner' ruffed, and was so shocked by > the appearance of the second trump he forgot to trump the return > and lost another trick. There is nothing new under the sun. > > I agree that: > a) If no-one ever makes a play, then it's not frabjous. > > But since the antecedent is empty, this principle is > worthless. > > I will not agree that: > b) If no-one _typically_ makes a play, then it's not > frabjous. > This is too lenient on most claimers, although I could > accept it if the WBFLC were to adopt it, since it at least > makes some sense--we give claimer what he _probably_ would > have gotten. > > What you seem to want, Herman, and what David Burn > is suggesting you say, is: > > c) If no-one typically makes a play, then it's not > frabjous, unless it's a _bad_ [careless or inferior] > play, in which case it is. > > This is certainly a possible interpretation of the > law, but it is an interpretation of the law that has > absolutely nothing to recommend it that I can see. Why > would we want to rule that uncommon but perfectly good > plays don't count against declarer, but uncommon bad > plays do? > > Put it another way: if the goal of claim > adjudication is to give declarer roughly what he would > have gotten had he played the hand out, then that's > a reason to ignore atypical lines [since he probably wouldn't > have followed them], but it is a reason to ignore _all_ > atypical lines, including the careless or inferior ones, and > it is a reason to force declarer into irrational lines > if we think he would have taken them. So the Tenerife rule > is philosophically incompatible with the ruling that says > that we never allow illegal plays in claim rulings even > if we're virtually certain the most people in this > claimer's place would, in fact, make them. It is also > philosophically inconsistent with the footnote's > inclusion of careless and inferior plays, which are > clearly not normal. ["Philosophically incompatible". I > did not say "contradictory".] > > {I can handle claimers who try to argue that a line > is so bad that it's _irrational_, and so they shouldn't be forced > into it. I wait now for the time when a declarer tries to > argue that a certain line is so good that it's _rational_ > and not _inferior_, and therefore we shouldn't hold him > to it!} > > Or, if the goal of claim law is to give declarer the > worst line that he could legally have taken, excluding only the > crazy ones, then the Tenerife decision violates the goal > of the law. > >> Look Eric, you have not convinced me or anyone else that the EBLAC has >> gone against the Law. This is a gray area, and the world could do with >> some consensus. Let it rest. > > > I have been convinced now that the law is so vaguely > worded that this decision doesn't contradict it. I think the > decision is either worthless as a precedent [because it > applies only to declarers in exactly the position and > state of mind as that one], or else philosophically > indefensible. I don't want consensus at the cost > of incoherence. > > PLEASE GIVE ME SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE > OF CLAIM LAW THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AS WRITTEN, THE > TENERIFE DECISION, AND THE RULING THAT NO ILLEGAL PLAYS ARE > EVER ALLOWED. Please, someone. Because frankly I now have no > clue which lines I'm supposed to consider. > I am serious about this...I'm not just making trouble. > > > Let me put it another way. Many people [indeed, as > best I can tell, everyone on the face of the earth except > me] want some official body to make the gray area less gray > by providing guidelines. But such guidelines have no real > value unless there's some reason for drawing the lines > where they're drawn. It does us no good to say "never > consider lines that involve playing the 9 of diamonds at > trick 8". If you think that it's a fact that declarers who > are absolutely certain that all trumps are out to such a > degree that they will _never_ try to catch a lurker > will never play a trump before a non-trump, and if you think > this fact is relevant to claim adjudication, then you > must explain _why_ it's relevant to claim adjudication. > _Why_ should we exclude 'rational but atypical lines'? What > purpose does excluding them serve? Why does including > careless and inferior lines not abrogate that purpose? > Until someone answers questions like that, you'll never > satisfy me [or Eric, I'd guess, despite other differences > he and I have]. > > I'm not sure I agree with the factual claim, but > even if I stipulate it I need to have the theoretical > claim explained. > >>> Excuse me? I say that I am waiting for someone to tell me what the >>> reasoning behind the EBLAC attempt to "settle[] it" was, and Herman >>> tells me to pretend that someone already has. I think I'll keep >>> waiting for a bit longer. If the "justification given" Herman refers >>> to is his statement above that, "No-one does this !!!", I believe >>> that to be a factual error. >> >> >> >> How can you say that ! >> Give this hand to a beginner and have him play until trick 13. > > > Eric and I are absolutely convinced that _some_ > precentage of the time the beginner will play the second > trump. I think it might even be more than 50% of the > time. I am assuming you tell the beginner "there is only > one trump left out". If you tell him "there's probably > only one small trump left out, but there might be two" > then I agree that the beginner will hardly ever play > both trumps...but this is the very state of mind you > tell me the Tenerife claimer wasn't in. > >>> Exactly. Since it's too hard at this point to try to find it by >>> proposing a line and debating whether it's the right one -- we've >>> tried that, without success -- the next best way is to do what we're >>> doing: examine individual cases and decide which side of the line >>> they fall on. If we do this with enough cases, we should wind up >>> with a pretty good idea of where the line goes. >> >> >> That's exactly what the EBLAC has done. And then you go and argue that >> the Law says they are wrong. > > > Eric and I think you have to draw the lines _coherently_. > If I were to draw a line at playing the 9 or diamonds at trick > 8 that would not help reduce the gray area...it would only > confuse things. The Tenerife AC has confused Eric, me, and > apparently some other people as well. > >> Herman DE WAEL > > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > > -- 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 Feb 12 20:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1C9tSn28461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1C9tJH28438 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47783.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.167]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1C9jr801835 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:45:53 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C68E468.2030801@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:46:16 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206095120.00afc100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207112638.00b00560@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020207164332.00b10dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020208112008.00aa0490@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211085619.00aa5120@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211140757.00aa78c0@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 10:53 AM 2/11/02, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Admittedly, the above point was rather off the track, so I'm not >>> surprised if Herman or others were confused. It is not critical, or >>> even, IMO, relevant, to the point of the debate. I was merely >>> pointing out that if Herman believes that "no-one does this!!!", he >>> is wrong with respect to a standard which he apparently believes >>> matters, notwithstanding that I do not. >> >> >> No, quite the contrary. If something that sometimes happens is >> considered non-frabjous (revokes), then something that never happens >> can surely be a criterion for non-frabjousness. > > > Herman argues that if a revoke, which sometimes happens, is considered > non-frabjous, then playing ace first (in the position under discussion), > which never happens, should therefore be considered non-frabjous. If > this statement were logically true, then so would be... > No Eric, you said that something which sometimes happens is non-frabjous, so something which does not cannot be. Or something. I pointed out that if something which does happen can be non-frabjous, then surely something which never happens can be non-frabjous. I did not say that perforce it must be, but you were reversing some argument and that was wrong. Let's stop this sub-thread, OK ? > -- 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 Feb 12 21:05:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CA4oH00383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:04:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CA4fH00351 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:04:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47783.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.167]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1C9tN810102 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:55:23 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C68E6A1.8070809@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:55:45 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> 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: > I admit that this is getting a bit frustrating. My apologies if my > frustration comes through too blatantly below. > I have at various times in this thread been guilty of the same, and I apologize. > At 10:50 AM 2/11/02, Herman wrote: > >> Well Eric, how about the Tenerife case ? > > > Well, Herman, how about the Tenerife case? We are discussing the > Tenerife case. Tenerife is not the Throne Room of the Lord, and there > is no reason why a decision made by one committee in Tenerife, unlike > every other decision made by every other committee anywhere, should be > out of bounds for discussion in this forum. > You misunderstand me. You say something does not exist, and therefor we were wrong. I say that thing does exist, and I point to it as an example. But you say that because we were wrong, you cannot accept the example. You're going in circles ! I am not saying that this proves we were right. I am saying that this is an example of something which may belong in a class that you don't accept as non-empty. >> And don't say that it is not convincing. 4 eminent people were >> convinced. > > > Even if *every eminent authority in the world* were convinced of > something, that would not make it true, else the Earth would not only be > in the center of the universe, but would be flat to boot. > No, but it does mean something ! > Herman, you insult everyone on this list when you persist in repeatedly > advancing the argument that you are right because the Tenerife committee > is an eminent authority and they say so. Such assertions have no place > in this forum. One can reasonably cite the opinions of eminent > authorities to support the credibility of one's position, but one cannot > claim that they prove anything. > I did not say that it proves anything, it is evidence to something. You don't accept the evidence, because you think we were wrong, and you think we were wrong because there is no evidence that you accept. >> Look, we've told you there is no reason to believe that the set of >> rational, non-frabjous plays is not empty, and there is even an >> example at hand. Why not accept this and move on? > > > See above. The Pope tells me that, as I am a Jew, I shall surely fry in > Hell. Why do I not accept this and move on? Because I do not believe > it, any more than I believe that the Tenerife committee is any more > eminent or any more of an authority than the Pope. > > This is the last time I shall lower myself to writing a rebuttal to an > argument which says nothing more than that something is true because > x-number of eminent authorities says so. > >> And if you really want another example, how about the ACBL-guideline >> that suits are played top-down. You might argue that there is nothing >> irrational about bottom-up. >> Another example of a rational play that is considered non-frabjous by >> some. > > > How about the ACBL guideline? You claim this as an example of a > rational play that is considered non-frabjous by some, but the ACBL, > quite clearly and explicitly, claims that it is an example of an > irrational play that must therefore be considered non-frabjous by law. > Yes, Herman, you can make a case that they might be wrong, you might > even be able to make a convincing case that they are wrong, but it has > nothing whatsoever to do with your point. > You call playing upside-down irrational now ? Strange. I was just about to accept your calling trumps first rational. Perhaps you should try and get your definition of irrational straight. > I am certain that if you asked the ACBLLC, "If, hypothetically, you did > not believe that playing suits top-down were irrational, would you still > tell us not to consider the possibility that they might be played other > than top down when adjudicating claims?", the answer would be a > unanimous and resounding "no". > Well, they have labeled it non-frabjous, they have not told us why. The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without saying why. Now either: - it is irrational - it is rational but abnormal - the EBLAC was wrong I know which one you are voting for. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Wed Feb 13 00:34:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CDWeC06616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:32:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CDWVH06593 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:32:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16actx-0006p4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:23:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212081447.00a96820@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:23:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202112148.g1BLmrO07627@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:48 PM 2/11/02, Ted wrote: > Yes, and I athink you are correct that we should all rule one > way, but an arbitrary decision of which is normal and which > is not for pulling trumps first or last is neither fair, > nor should it become a standard by which to measure. Or, if > we are going to have a standard that we measure all players > by, then we should use the more cautious method of trumps > first. I think the trumps last is an arbitrarily unfair > assumption to be made and used as a standard. Why should the standard not be trumps either first or last, whichever produces the less favorable result? We know how to rule when someone claims four tricks with AJ92 opposite K1083 without saying how he'll play the suit. We would surely reject a guideline that says that declarer should always be deemed to finesse towards the ace, or towards the king. Why should we treat trumps first or last any differently, if we do not believe, as Herman does, that a declarer would always play one way rather than the other? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 00:52:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CDpsD09308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:51:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CDpjH09286 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:51:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16adCV-0001da-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:42:27 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:43:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <002f01c1b35d$85899000$cd43e150@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:36 PM 2/11/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:58 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > I am certain that if you asked the ACBLLC, "If, hypothetically, > > you did not believe that playing suits top-down were irrational, > > would you still tell us not to consider the possibility that they > > might be played other than top down when adjudicating > > claims?", the answer would be a unanimous and resounding > > "no". > >+=+ I haven't quite parsed that to my satisfaction, but it may >be asserted that a player who believes all his cards are high is >no more compelled to play his side suits after his trumps than >to play his suits from the top down. If the latter 'normality' >may be ordered when every card has the same value, so may >be ordered the 'normality' of retention of trumps to the end. The ACBL has stated that playing side suits other than top down when attempting to cash all of the tricks in the suit is irrational, and therefore should not be considered (when adjudicating a faulty claim). One can agree or disagree with the correctness of their statement, but cannot disagree with the legitimacy of their making it. If Herman or the EBLAC had said that playing the last trump prior to trick 13 was irrational, and therefore should not be considered, I would disagree with the correctness of that statement, but would not be questioning its legitimacy. But (if Herman has represented the decision accurately) they did not say that. They do not claim that playing the trump first is irrational, but they claim that it should nevertheless be excluded, on some other grounds, viz. because it is "not normal", or because "nobody over does that". I argue that a decision on those grounds is not legimate. Herman claims that the ACBL statement is analogous, and supports the legitimacy of the decision. I contend that the ACBL would not agree with him. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 01:24:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CEOdu14799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:24:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CEOVH14776 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:24:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16adiH-0007FI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:15:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212085200.00aaf300@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:15:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@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 03:52 PM 2/11/02, David wrote: >In effect, the position I have reached in my own thinking is this. > >A claim arises, and an adjudication is called for. > >The claimer's opponents say: "If claimer followed line X, he would make >fewer tricks than he has claimed, and he has made no statement to the >effect that he will not follow line X." > >It is ascertained that the claimer has indeed made no statement that >precludes line X. He asserts that he would not in practice follow line >X. This is tantamount to (and usually accompanied by) a statement that >he would follow some other line Y to arrive at the number of tricks he >has claimed. > >The director must therefore decide whether to adjust the score on the >basis that the claimer might actually follow line X. If he so decides, >then (per L70D) he does not permit line Y, for line X is an alternative >normal line of play that would be less successful. > >To do this, he considers whether > >(a) Line X is irrational. In that case, he rules that the claimer would >not follow it (for the Law says that no irrational line is normal, and >that the director must consider only normal lines). Otherwise, he >considers whether > >(b) Line X is abnormal. In that case, he rules that the claimer would >not follow it (for the Law says that the director must consider only >normal lines). > >Otherwise, the director should rule that the claimer would in fact >follow line X, and make an adjustment on that basis. > >Now, the impact of the footnote is that no line of play may be >considered so careless, or so inferior, as to be regarded as abnormal. >All careless and all inferior plays are normal (provided that they are >rational) - so says the law. > >But it has been asserted that a play may be dismissed as abnormal not >because it is careless or inferior, but because it is "atypical", and >thus the question of its carelessness or inferiority does not arise. In >particular, it has been asserted that, in the case of a claimer with >what he believes to be the last trump and several side winners, to play >the trump before any (or all) of the other winners is atypical >behaviour, and thus an objection to his claim on the grounds that he >might follow such a line cannot be sustained. > >My position thus far is that I believe this to be a standpoint that is >not contrary to the Laws. I personally believe it to be a foolish and >dangerous notion, and I am horrified to discover that a ruling based >upon it might set a precedent that my NBO could become bound to follow. >I do not mind if some declarer convinces a group of kind-hearted >holidaymakers that he really wouldn't ever have played his trump until >trick 13, nor do I mind if he also sells them shares in his brother's >Guatemalan oil well. But, if it's all the same to you, I'm not buying. I make the following assertion: "It is never normal to play irrationally." IOW, there does not exist a line of play which is simultaneously "normal" and "irrational". In particular, the reference to irrationality in the footnote qualifies the "careless or inferior" plays which must be considered; it is *not* there to tell us that, in addition to including careless or inferior plays which might otherwise be considered abnormal, we must also take care to exclude irrational plays which might otherwise be considered normal. It has been advanced as a weakness in my position that if my interpretation of the footnote were correct, it could have been written far more simply as, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which would not be irrational for the class of player involved," and I have no reason to think that writers would not have done so. If, however, we read the footnote as Herman and David do, then the footnote could have been written as, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which would be neither abnormal nor irrational for the class of player involved." If we accept my assertion (or, more precisely, believe that the writers of the footnote would accept it), this becomes, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which would be not be abnormal for the class of player involved." If that were the correct reading, I would have no reason to think that the writers would have felt any need whatsoever to write a footnote at all. Whatever we think of the wording, it makes a lot more sense to me that the writers felt the need to write something that tells us that "for the purpose of adjudicating claims, 'normal' means not irrational" than that they felt the need to write something that tells us that "for the purpose of adjudicating claims, 'normal' means not abnormal". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 01:35:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CEZ5K16803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:35:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CEYuH16769 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:34:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16adsM-0001aJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:25:42 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212091834.00b0b910@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:26:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <005e01c1b391$b97a14a0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200202112148.g1BLmrO07627@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:51 AM 2/12/02, David wrote: >Ted wrote: ... >Someone buy that man a drink. ... >Someone else buy that man another drink. ... >He's probably got enough drinks already by now. But just in case, I'll >buy him one myself. Ted is a friend of mine and an occasional drinking companion. The list should be warned that that man has a taste for very expensive whisky. (Sorry, Ted. If that remark costs you any drinks, I shall buy them myself.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 01:45:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CEiwU18576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:44:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CEinH18554 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:44:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47494.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.134]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1CEZWg01286 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:35:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C692849.7090100@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:35:53 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212081447.00a96820@pop.starpower.net> 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: > > Why should the standard not be trumps either first or last, whichever > produces the less favorable result? > > We know how to rule when someone claims four tricks with AJ92 opposite > K1083 without saying how he'll play the suit. We would surely reject a > guideline that says that declarer should always be deemed to finesse > towards the ace, or towards the king. Why should we treat trumps first > or last any differently, if we do not believe, as Herman does, that a > declarer would always play one way rather than the other? > But now we are getting somewhere ! You don't believe that declarer would always play trumps last. Well, the EBLAC does believe that. Now this is something we can never prove, because no-one would ever play this out. Which is where the need for a standard decision comes in. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 01:49:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CEnJU19399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:49:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CEnAH19369 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47494.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.134]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1CEdng05771 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:39:49 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C69294B.4040104@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:40:11 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric, > > The ACBL has stated that playing side suits other than top down when > attempting to cash all of the tricks in the suit is irrational, and > therefore should not be considered (when adjudicating a faulty claim). > One can agree or disagree with the correctness of their statement, but > cannot disagree with the legitimacy of their making it. > > If Herman or the EBLAC had said that playing the last trump prior to > trick 13 was irrational, and therefore should not be considered, I would > disagree with the correctness of that statement, but would not be > questioning its legitimacy. But (if Herman has represented the decision > accurately) they did not say that. They do not claim that playing the > trump first is irrational, but they claim that it should nevertheless be > excluded, on some other grounds, viz. because it is "not normal", or > because "nobody over does that". I argue that a decision on those > grounds is not legimate. Herman claims that the ACBL statement is > analogous, and supports the legitimacy of the decision. I contend that > the ACBL would not agree with him. > The EBLAC has said nothing of the sort. They have stated that playing trumps non-last is non-normal. It is you who have said that this equates to it being called irrational, and since you deem it rational to play trumps first, that is against the law. Which is when I retort that maybe there are rational, but still non-normal plays. Which is what you dispute. And now you are saying that you'd be willing to accept us calling it irrational, but not us calling it rational but non-normal. You're cling at straws here, mate, and going in circles ! > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Wed Feb 13 02:58:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CFvnh02813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:57:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CFveH02798 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:57:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16afAP-0004KM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:48:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212094322.00b11100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:49:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C68E6A1.8070809@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:55 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>Well, Herman, how about the Tenerife case? We are discussing the >>Tenerife case. Tenerife is not the Throne Room of the Lord, and >>there is no reason why a decision made by one committee in Tenerife, >>unlike every other decision made by every other committee anywhere, >>should be out of bounds for discussion in this forum. >You misunderstand me. You say something does not exist, and therefor >we were wrong. I say that thing does exist, and I point to it as an >example. But you say that because we were wrong, you cannot accept >the example. You're going in circles ! Herman asserts that x is in A. I reject that assertion on the grounds that A is logically empty. Herman tells me that I must wrong; A cannot be empty, because it contains x. Which of us is going around in circles? >>How about the ACBL guideline? You claim this as an example of a >>rational play that is considered non-frabjous by some, but the ACBL, >>quite clearly and explicitly, claims that it is an example of an >>irrational play that must therefore be considered non-frabjous by law. >>Yes, Herman, you can make a case that they might be wrong, you might >>even be able to make a convincing case that they are wrong, but it >>has nothing whatsoever to do with your point. >You call playing upside-down irrational now ? Strange. I was just >about to accept your calling trumps first rational. Perhaps you should >try and get your definition of irrational straight. I have neither said nor disputed that playing upside-down is irrational. I have said that the ACBL has said that it is irrational, and therefore not frabjous. I have said that that is a legitimate finding, which I follow when I am called upon to adjudicate a claim. I do this without any need to consider whether or not whether I not *I* personally believe it to be irrational. It doesn't matter, as long as I believe the proposition that IF it is irrational, THEN it is not frabjous. >Well, they have labeled it non-frabjous, they have not told us why. They have told us why. They have told us that they labeled it non-frabjous because they find it to be irrational. >The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without saying why. > >Now either: >- it is irrational >- it is rational but abnormal >- the EBLAC was wrong > >I know which one you are voting for. These are not mutually exclusive; my feelings about the first and second have nothing to do with the third. The question, as with the ACBL's top-down guideline, is not whether the EBLAC's decision was correct, but rather whether it was legitimate, i.e. justified by the words of the Law. They have presumably used one or the other of the two sets of premises suggested in Herman's list: (1) (a) Trumps first is irrational. (b) If trumps first is irrational, then it is by law not frabjous. (2) (a) Trumps first is rational but abnormal. (b) If trumps first is rational but abnormal, then it is by law not frabjous. My personal opinion of these statements is: I disagree with (1a), but I do not believe it is directly pertinent to the matter at issue. I agree with (1b); I believe that this is indisputable as the Law is written. I lean towards agreeing with (2a), although I have reservations, but do not believe it is directly pertinent to the matter at issue. I disagree with (2b), and believe it to be the key point of contention here. Now if the EBLAC have used line of reasoning (1), then Herman is correct that their decision is analogous to the ACBL's top-down guideline. But, unless I've totally misread Herman's arguments, he has been justifying the decision using (2) (if that's not the case, we have surely wasted a lot of words arguing about the wrong thing, and (heaven help us!) need to start all over again). Now Herman seems to be saying that (2) is his own line of reasoning in support of the committee decision; the committee has not told us what its line of reasoning was. I have accused Herman of attempting to justify the committee's decision with the argument "they are right because they are eminent authorities and they say so." Now, apparently, we learn that this was not Herman's justification of the committee's decision, it was, rather, the committee's own implicit justification of its own decision (Herman writes, "The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without saying why."), in which case I owe Herman an apology, as he had no other argument to make which could be supported by the decision itself, and I have been focusing my ire, such as it is, on Herman, when it is the committee itself that should have been my target. I do not believe that the committee not only decided this case, but claimed for their decision the force of precedent, after having come to a decision based on no line of reasoning whatsoever (if I'm wrong, I leave it to others to decide what level of legitimacy that would give them). I must assume that they had *some* line of reasoning to support their decision. OK, Herman, anybody, can someone please tell us what it was, so we can get back to arguing whether it was right or wrong and/or whether it was legitmate or illegal? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 03:02:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CG2Ne03486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:02:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f149.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.149]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CG2CH03471 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:02:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:52:53 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:52:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:52:53 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2002 15:52:53.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[550834B0:01C1B3DD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HdeW: >The EBLAC has said nothing of the sort. >They have stated that playing trumps non-last is non-normal. And if that's a decent and lucid sentence, I'm the Queen of Sheba. >You're cling at straws here, mate, and going in circles ! At the same time? _________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 13 03:30:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CGUPa07893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:30:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CGUGH07865 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-5-94.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.5.94] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16affw-0001k7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:21:01 +0000 Message-ID: <00b701c1b3e1$01299380$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212094322.00b11100@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:19:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apropos nothing much, but a thought that has struck me: You are declarer, on lead with the six of trumps, which you believe to be the last outstanding card in the suit, and AK2 in another suit, of which you believe that there are only two cards outstanding in the opponents' hands. Might you not "typically" or "normally" play off the six of trumps, just in case you were wrong about the AK2 suit, on the off-chance that an opponent with three remaining cards in it would discard 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 Wed Feb 13 03:36:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CGZmG08666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:35:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CGZeH08652 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:35:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16aflC-0004RT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:26:26 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212105547.00b121e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:27:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C692849.7090100@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212081447.00a96820@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:35 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Why should the standard not be trumps either first or last, whichever >>produces the less favorable result? >>We know how to rule when someone claims four tricks with AJ92 >>opposite K1083 without saying how he'll play the suit. We would >>surely reject a guideline that says that declarer should always be >>deemed to finesse towards the ace, or towards the king. Why should >>we treat trumps first or last any differently, if we do not believe, >>as Herman does, that a declarer would always play one way rather than >>the other? >But now we are getting somewhere ! > >You don't believe that declarer would always play trumps last. >Well, the EBLAC does believe that. > >Now this is something we can never prove, because no-one would ever >play this out. >Which is where the need for a standard decision comes in. There are two different questions here: (1) What would a declarer who played the hand out do? We know that he might play trumps either first or last. We know that because there are members of this forum who have seen declarers play such hands out, sometimes playing trumps first and sometimes playing trumps last. (2) What should a comittee assume that a declarer who claimed would have done had he instead played the hand out? Herman argues that these two questions have nothing to do with one another, and that (2) is purely hypothetical and cannot be answered by evidence from real life, since declarers who claim do not play hands out. He argues that it is therefore appropriate to select an arbitary answer to (2) essentially at random, because we would like to have an answer, any answer, which, if it were to be accepted by consensus, would produce consistent decisions from different committees, which would, in and of itself, be a good thing. I argue that these questions are very closely related, and that even if we are not prepared to accept that the answer to (2) must logically be the same as the answer to (1), the answer to (1) should surely influence our otherwise arbitary choice of an answer to (2). I argue that if we want an answer to (2) in order to achieve consistency (which I believe we do), and we want that answer to be consensually accepted (which I believe we do), we will accomplish that goal a lot more readily and easily if we select the answer to (1) to be our presumptive answer to (2), notwithstanding that we may not believe this choice to be forced upon us by either logic or the Law, than if we select some other answer to (2) arbitrarily and randomly, which is what the EBLAC has apparently done. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 03:45:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CGjds09932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:45:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CGjVH09919 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:45:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16afuj-0006Nz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:36:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212113028.00b14260@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:36:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C69294B.4040104@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:40 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >Eric, > >>The ACBL has stated that playing side suits other than top down when >>attempting to cash all of the tricks in the suit is irrational, and >>therefore should not be considered (when adjudicating a faulty claim). >>One can agree or disagree with the correctness of their statement, >>but cannot disagree with the legitimacy of their making it. >>If Herman or the EBLAC had said that playing the last trump prior to >>trick 13 was irrational, and therefore should not be considered, I >>would disagree with the correctness of that statement, but would not >>be questioning its legitimacy. But (if Herman has represented the >>decision accurately) they did not say that. They do not claim that >>playing the trump first is irrational, but they claim that it should >>nevertheless be excluded, on some other grounds, viz. because it is >>"not normal", or because "nobody over does that". I argue that a >>decision on those grounds is not legimate. Herman claims that the >>ACBL statement is analogous, and supports the legitimacy of the >>decision. I contend that the ACBL would not agree with him. I write, "They [the EBLAC]... claim[s] that playing the trump first is... 'not normal'," and Herman replies with, >The EBLAC has said nothing of the sort. >They have stated that playing trumps non-last is non-normal. Sigh. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 05:41:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CIf9401924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:41:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CIf0H01904 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:41:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:31:46 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200202112204.RAA01431@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:48:44 -0600 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2002 18:31:47.0025 (UTC) FILETIME=[873A3C10:01C1B3F3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems to me that, in spite of their statement, the Tenerife committee was saying that trumps first is irrational for the class of player involved. We can all see that this is not irrational for all classes of players. Some of the really crummy bridge playing programs used to play trumps first, no matter what. Of course, they could count, but they would even play a losing trump first. A few people I know play almost as badly as those programs. (Some days I do.) For these people, to say trumps not last is irrational is to say their play is irrational, which may well be true. But is irrational play really irrational for a player who normally makes irrational plays? It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? We don't have to look too far back, though across a lot of water and several thousand miles of land from Tenerife to find a committee (not as distinguished as the Tenerife committee, to be sure) made a finding that almost everyone thinks is nuts. Vancouver? Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 06:04:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CJ4AW04451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:04:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CIwwH03516 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:58:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CImtd28526; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:49:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020212120317.00a2d9b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:50:24 -0600 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" In-Reply-To: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@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 08:52 PM 2/11/02 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: > > There is nothing in the law that says that normal > > plays are or are not frabjous. > >That is strictly true. However, if "frabjous" is interpreted as "those >plays that should be admitted for the purposes of score adjustment in >adjudicating a claim", then it is at least possible to define "frabjous" >plays as "normal, or careless, or inferior, but not irrational". We Oh, I agree that it is possible to interpret it that way. I merely wished to point out, while in my pedantic mode, that this was an _interpretation_ of the law that isn't entailed by the words. Some people were talking as if "normal" could be replaced by "frabjous" while at the very same time remaining in the text as "normal". This, I assert, will not do. >further say (or at least, Grattan and Herman further say) that the first >of those criteria is a necessary one - for a play to be frabjous, it >must be normal; no abnormal play can be frabjous, whatever other >attributes it may possess. If we make those temporary assumptions, then I hope that is _not_ what they are saying, since careless and inferior plays are not "normal" for most classes of player, and therefore it would be utter nonsense to insist that we must retain "normalcy" [thanks, Calvin] as a necessary requirement for "frabjousity", and yet say that careless and inferior plays are frabjous. I assume that what they are saying is that among the class of abnormal plays, we will include the careless and inferior among the frabjous. This is why I think the idea is very odd, because it means that _bad_ abnormal plays are included as possible lines to stick claimer with, but _good_ abnormal plays [that happen to be unsuccessful] are not. In other words, you are telling claimer: "we think you might adopt this careless or inferior atypical line, but we don't think you would adopt this perfectly respectable atypical line". I assert that this makes no sense, although you have indeed convinced me that it is not officially illegal. >The director must therefore decide whether to adjust the score on the >basis that the claimer might actually follow line X. If he so decides, >then (per L70D) he does not permit line Y, for line X is an alternative >normal line of play that would be less successful. > >To do this, he considers whether > >(a) Line X is irrational. In that case, he rules that the claimer would >not follow it (for the Law says that no irrational line is normal, and >that the director must consider only normal lines). Otherwise, he >considers whether > >(b) Line X is abnormal. In that case, he rules that the claimer would >not follow it (for the Law says that the director must consider only >normal lines). This will not do. Careless and inferior line are abnormal, clearly, and yet we are to rule that claimer could follow them. >Otherwise, the director should rule that the claimer would in fact >follow line X, and make an adjustment on that basis. > >Now, the impact of the footnote is that no line of play may be >considered so careless, or so inferior, as to be regarded as abnormal. >All careless and all inferior plays are normal (provided that they are >rational) - so says the law. This is utterly incoherent. If "normal" here is taken in it's standard English sense, then this is an out-and-out contradiction. [For most classes of player--there might be some players so bad that they normally play in a careless or inferior fashion. I assume they are the exception.] If "normal" here is not to be taken in it's normal English sense, then we have come back around again to the point where the law is utterly silent about where "normal" [standard English sense] plays are frabjous or not. People continue to want to have this both ways. I say you must argue either: a) "Normal" means normal, and the footnote is contradictory in saying that careless and inferior plays are normal. b) "Normal" means normal, and the footnote means that to be frabjous a play must be normal _or_ careless _or_ inferior. This is logially consistent but significantly odd, since as I said it implies that a declarer can be deemed to follow atypical bad lines but never atypical good ones. c) "Normal" doesn't mean normal at all. In that case the lawmakers need to give us some theoretical guidance as to how to rule claims, because all we know is that careless and inferior are in but irrational ones are out. [My view is none of the above, but clearly nobody likes my view. :)] >But it has been asserted that a play may be dismissed as abnormal not >because it is careless or inferior, but because it is "atypical", and >thus the question of its carelessness or inferiority does not arise. In >particular, it has been asserted that, in the case of a claimer with >what he believes to be the last trump and several side winners, to play >the trump before any (or all) of the other winners is atypical >behaviour, and thus an objection to his claim on the grounds that he >might follow such a line cannot be sustained. Again, that isn't how I read their arguments. As I read their arguments, the fact that a line is atypical means it is to be dismissed _unless_ it is atypical _and_ careless or inferior. The Tenerife decision seems to be based on the idea that playing the trump first is _not_ careless or inferior, but is atypical, and is therefore out. Had it been careless or inferior, then it would have been in. Now Herman sometimes sounds as though he has something else in mind, namely that this line is not merely 'atypical' but is actually _never_ followed, or, at least, never followed by people who claim in this position because they are certain that all trumps are out. This gives a different legal interpretation...all never-done lines are non-frabjous. Eric and I have argued that this class is empty, and therefore Tenerife is wrong by its own standards. My interpretation of Tenerife given above is based on the assumption that Tenerife wasn't based on the never-done theory, out of the principle of charity. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 06:41:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CJfFs10461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:41:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.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 g1CJf7H10440 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:41:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.196] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16aieX-000MIg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:31:46 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:30:40 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1B3FB.C19F72A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:30:39 -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 Richard E. Harris wrote: It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? ******************************* I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where we started. This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of you for your opinions. Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing with the original ruling which started the thread? Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of voting consensus? Original problem: Spades are trumps. Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". The defenders have a master trump. Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. Correct? I vote for correct. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 07:09:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CK8jd16051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:08:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1CK8aH16022 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:08:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1CJxGm07782 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:59:16 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:59:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Fearghal O'Boyle" at Feb 12, 2002 07:30:39 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 As one of the people in favor of least favorable result for offender, I second the vote for correct (declarer loses last 3 tricks). -Ted. > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:30:39 -0000 > > Richard E. Harris wrote: > > It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please > > start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? > ******************************* > > I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where > we started. This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of > you for your opinions. > > Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing > with the original ruling which started the thread? > > Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of > voting consensus? > > > Original problem: > > Spades are trumps. > Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. > She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > The defenders have a master trump. > Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > Correct? > > I vote for 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 Wed Feb 13 07:14:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CKEQ517121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:14:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz ([210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1CKEHH17095 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:14:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13702 invoked by uid 504); 12 Feb 2002 19:58:26 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.174552 secs); 12 Feb 2002 19:58:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.217) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 19:58:25 -0000 Message-ID: <002501c1b400$689ffe40$d916b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020212120317.00a2d9b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:03:53 +1300 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: Grant Sterling To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > I hope that is _not_ what they are saying, since careless > and inferior plays are not "normal" for most classes of player, > and therefore it would be utter nonsense to insist that we must > retain "normalcy" [thanks, Calvin] as a necessary requirement > for "frabjousity", and yet say that careless and inferior plays > are frabjous. There are many, perhaps as many as 'most' or a 'significant majority' for whom it is normal to make careless and inferior plays. I for one would quickly lose count of the number of times I think, too late, there was a better way of playing that hand - maybe I was careless, certainly my play was inferior and sadly this is a normal, in the dictionary sense, part of my game. I don't see any contradiction in a play being either: Normal and careless; or Normal and inferior. We see these plays every day. 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 Wed Feb 13 07:18:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CKIIA17781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:18:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CKI7H17740 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:18:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1CK8ql10856 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:08:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <00b701c1b3e1$01299380$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > Might you not "typically" or "normally" play off the six of trumps, just > in case you were wrong about the AK2 suit, on the off-chance that an > opponent with three remaining cards in it would discard one? If I knew the 6 was the last trump, of course I might. But if I held 2,AKQ I would regard playing the 2 first as terminally stupid beyond the point of carelessness. If I held A,AKQ I would regard playing anything but the trump ace as terminally stupid. Indeed make that 4,AKQ and Q,AKQ and I still regard the cases as stupidity indicators (the 4 is so unlikely to be top and the queen so likely to be that I regard the "precautionary" order as blindingly obvious). Make the trump 8,9 or T and you will be hard pressed to persuade me that precaution A is any more normal than precaution B in a disputed claim case. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 07:20:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CKKbY18208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:20:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1CKKRH18185 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:20:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1CKB9i08567 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:11:09 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202122011.g1CKB9i08567@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:11:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Eric Landau" at Feb 12, 2002 08:23:53 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 Sorry about the confusion. I still think that we should not pick an arbitrary decision, but should go with the least favorable for offender option, however, my contention was that even if we had to assume a "standard" that we would assume the one that is more careful (playing trumps first). I don't think this is a good thing, but my answer was that the choice that Herman proposes (trumps last) is my last choice for an option of an appropriate standard to set. -Ted. > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:23:53 -0500 > From: Eric Landau > > At 04:48 PM 2/11/02, Ted wrote: > > > Yes, and I athink you are correct that we should all rule one > > way, but an arbitrary decision of which is normal and which > > is not for pulling trumps first or last is neither fair, > > nor should it become a standard by which to measure. Or, if > > we are going to have a standard that we measure all players > > by, then we should use the more cautious method of trumps > > first. I think the trumps last is an arbitrarily unfair > > assumption to be made and used as a standard. > > Why should the standard not be trumps either first or last, whichever > produces the less favorable result? > > We know how to rule when someone claims four tricks with AJ92 opposite > K1083 without saying how he'll play the suit. We would surely reject a > guideline that says that declarer should always be deemed to finesse > towards the ace, or towards the king. Why should we treat trumps first > or last any differently, if we do not believe, as Herman does, that a > declarer would always play one way rather than the other? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 07:58:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CKw7t24976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:58:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CKvxH24972 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:58:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA18352 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:48:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA07041 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:48:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:48:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202122048.PAA07041@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > even if we had to assume a "standard" that we would assume the > one that is more careful (playing trumps first). Ted: L70C. For the third time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 08:18:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CLHec25006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:17:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CLHWH25002 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:17:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1Q1G7ZJ2>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:10:54 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21C1@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "''bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:10:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I vote for correct Playing a diamond first is normal Playing a trump first is also normal Claimer gets the least favorable of normal lines. John S. Nichols -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: 2/12/02 2:30 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Richard E. Harris wrote: It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? ******************************* I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where we started. This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of you for your opinions. Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing with the original ruling which started the thread? Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of voting consensus? Original problem: Spades are trumps. Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". The defenders have a master trump. Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. Correct? I vote for correct. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 08:21:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CLKno25023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:20:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CLKbH25015 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:20:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.76.19] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16akCu-00074C-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:11:20 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c1b40a$34608d20$134ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Cookery and the laws of duplicate bridge Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:23:58 -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; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:20:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.76.19] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16akCw-00074C-00; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:11:22 +0000 Message-ID: <002601c1b40a$3563f360$134ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:13:04 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > At 07:36 PM 2/11/02, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:58 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > The ACBL has stated that playing side suits other > than top down when attempting to cash all of the > tricks in the suit is irrational, and therefore should > not be considered (when adjudicating a faulty claim). > One can agree or disagree with the correctness of > their statement, but cannot disagree with the > legitimacy of their making it. > > If Herman or the EBLAC had said that playing > the last trump prior to trick 13 was irrational, > and therefore should not be considered, I would > disagree with the correctness of that statement, > but would not be questioning its legitimacy. > So, Eric, Presumably you did not see the early message in which I said the EBLAC had deemed that - in the case it dealt with - for the class of player concerned it would be irrational to play the second trump. That view had my support in the AC. I have viewed all the debate about normality and abnormality with much interest, but as I stated at the start irrationality was the key issue. I do not know where the HDW basis comes from but I do know where I stood on the day, and still stand to be counted. In the position no bridge player of quality would play the second trump before the side suits, and the law does not require such an irrational action to be imposed on him. In WBF discussions I have given my vote to the top-down argument also. But if the foundation of it holds firm the EBLAC was fully entitled to use an identical base to decide that not to retain the second trump is equally irrational. Any challenge to either stance is not about 'correctness' but about a matter of judgement. ~ 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 Feb 13 08:36:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CLaUF25046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:36:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1CLaMH25042 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:36:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1CLR3512243 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:27:03 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202122127.g1CLR3512243@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:27:03 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Feb 12, 2002 03:48:45 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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:48:45 -0500 (EST) > From: Steve Willner > > > From: Ted Ying > > even if we had to assume a "standard" that we would assume the > > one that is more careful (playing trumps first). > > Ted: L70C. > > For the third time. TY: Steve, My last posting was trying to explain the previous posting, not to expound the argument again. As such, when trying to explain a previous posting, it doesn't help matters to change the context of what I was trying to explain. I understood the first time you mentioned L70C (and I obviously missed the second time since this is only the second time I've seen you point this out). Read my message again, it says that my contention WAS. Past tense for clarification. My argument still remains that we should choose least favorable for offender. I've said I don't think picking either method (trumps first or last) is a good thing. I don't advocate either of them except in relation to the other. This was in response to Eric's response that seemed to think that I was advocating this over the least favorable for offender option. > From: Ted Ying > Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:11:09 -0500 (EST) > > Sorry about the confusion. I still think that we should not > pick an arbitrary decision, but should go with the least > favorable for offender option, however, my contention was that > even if we had to assume a "standard" that we would assume the > one that is more careful (playing trumps first). I don't think > this is a good thing, but my answer was that the choice that > Herman proposes (trumps last) is my last choice for an option > of an appropriate standard to set. > > -Ted. TY: However, L70C does not apply in the case where the outstanding (defensive) trump is high. In that case, the trump will win all the time and you have to decide whether declarer would play the trump first or last. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 09:15:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CMEmA29240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:14:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CMEdH29226 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:14:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16al3E-0000y5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:05:24 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212165636.00aad870@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:06:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020212120317.00a2d9b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@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 01:50 PM 2/12/02, Grant wrote: People continue to want to have this both ways. I say you >must argue either: > a) "Normal" means normal, and the footnote is contradictory >in saying that careless and inferior plays are normal. > b) "Normal" means normal, and the footnote means that >to be frabjous a play must be normal _or_ careless _or_ inferior. >This is logially consistent but significantly odd, since as I >said it implies that a declarer can be deemed to follow atypical >bad lines but never atypical good ones. > c) "Normal" doesn't mean normal at all. In that case >the lawmakers need to give us some theoretical guidance as to >how to rule claims, because all we know is that careless and >inferior are in but irrational ones are out. > [My view is none of the above, but clearly nobody >likes my view. :)] How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." That's my position in a nutshell. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 09:27:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CMRGh00795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:27:16 +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 g1CMR8H00780 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:27:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA27327 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:17:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA07192 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:17:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:17:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202122217.RAA07192@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is > there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the > class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." I would like to know how Eric and David B. would rule in Tim's case: both a squeeze and a finesse are possible, but the particular declarer in question would never think of anything but the finesse. Thus the squeeze is abnormal (in the usual English sense) for this declarer but certainly not irrational. Is the squeeze line admissible ("frabjous") or not? Of course I welcome comments from anyone else, too. Tim and I, and I think Herman, are all ruling that the squeeze line is not admissible *for this declarer*. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 09:44:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CMhnO02892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:43:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CMheH02873 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:43:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16alVJ-000027-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:34:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:35:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <002601c1b40a$3563f360$134ce150@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:13 PM 2/12/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:43 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > At 07:36 PM 2/11/02, Grattan wrote: > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Eric Landau" > > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > > >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:58 PM > > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > The ACBL has stated that playing side suits other > > than top down when attempting to cash all of the > > tricks in the suit is irrational, and therefore should > > not be considered (when adjudicating a faulty claim). > > One can agree or disagree with the correctness of > > their statement, but cannot disagree with the > > legitimacy of their making it. > > > > If Herman or the EBLAC had said that playing > > the last trump prior to trick 13 was irrational, > > and therefore should not be considered, I would > > disagree with the correctness of that statement, > > but would not be questioning its legitimacy. > > > So, Eric, > Presumably you did not see the early >message in which I said the EBLAC had >deemed that - in the case it dealt with - for >the class of player concerned it would be >irrational to play the second trump. That >view had my support in the AC. True. I got the impression from Herman's posts that he was reporting the logic behind the committee's decision when he suggested that the trump-first line should not be imposed because it was "not normal" or because "nobody ever does it", rather than because it was irrational. > I have viewed all the debate about >normality and abnormality with much >interest, but as I stated at the start >irrationality was the key issue. I do not >know where the HDW basis comes from >but I do know where I stood on the day, >and still stand to be counted. In the >position no bridge player of quality would >play the second trump before the side >suits, and the law does not require such >an irrational action to be imposed on him. > In WBF discussions I have given my >vote to the top-down argument also. But >if the foundation of it holds firm the EBLAC >was fully entitled to use an identical base >to decide that not to retain the second >trump is equally irrational. Any challenge >to either stance is not about 'correctness' >but about a matter of judgement. That is what I have said above. I think we agree, but are using different words. I have tried to distinguish between believing a decision to be "wrong" -- meaning that I disagree with the facts of the finding -- and believing it to be "illegitimate" -- meaning that the finding was reached on a basis not permitted by the laws. The latter, of course, depends on how the decision was arrived at. If an appropriate authority issues a legitimate guideline (e.g. the ACBL's top-down rule), I consider myself bound to follow it whether I believe it to be right or wrong. If the rationale for the EBLAC decision was as Grattan represents it, their decision was legitimate, although I personally think it was wrong. If the rationale was as Herman has been representing it, it is illegitimate. IOW, if the committee indeed said that "it would be irrational to play the second trump", and consequently ruled not to impose that line on this declarer, then I disagree, but that's my opinion, and the committee is entitled to theirs. If they said that it would not be irrational, but nevertheless should not be imposed on this declarer for some other reason, then I believe that the laws do not provide the necessary justification for their decision. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 13 10:45:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1CNjLm08020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:45:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CNjCH08016 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:45:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=David) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16amSq-0002EL-00; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:35:56 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1b41e$5447e160$0200a8c0@David> From: "David Barton" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212165636.00aad870@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:38:04 -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 > > How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is > there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the > class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." > > That's my position in a nutshell. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- To help clarify my thinking could someone comment on the following scenario:- Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes A and K of clubs and then claims 13 tricks saying dummy is good. A defender of course still has guarded JC. Now it would not be irrational (or even careless or inferior) to cash any or all of the non club AK's before playing the QC (since the clubs are believed to be good). However for any class of player it would not be normal. ie I believe that playing anything other than the QC at this point belongs to the set of rational non normal plays that certain people have speculated is empty. I would rule 6NT making 12. Presumably the hawks would rule it down several. But on what basis? Comments please. David@Barton-Bramhall.fsnet.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 Feb 13 11:01:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D01AO08037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:01:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.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 g1D012H08033 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:01:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.209] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16ami1-0002cy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:51:38 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:50:31 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1B420.0E044AC0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:50:29 -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 David Barton asked: Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes A and K of clubs and then claims 13 tricks saying dummy is good. A defender of course still has guarded JC. Now it would not be irrational (or even careless or inferior) to cash any or all of the non club AK's before playing the QC (since the clubs are believed to be good). However for any class of player it would not be normal. ie I believe that playing anything other than the QC at this point belongs to the set of rational non normal plays that certain people have speculated is empty. I would rule 6NT making 12. Presumably the hawks would rule it down several. But on what basis? ************************************************** Count me among the hawks then ... 6NT - 3. If declarer thinks all his remaining cards are equal then it is not irrational for him to cash his outside AK's before he cashes his remaining Club winners. 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 Feb 13 11:38:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D0c3C08086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:38:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D0buH08082 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:37:56 +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 g1D0T4517900 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:29:04 -0900 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:28:29 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <002001c1b41e$5447e160$0200a8c0@David> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, David Barton wrote: > To help clarify my thinking could someone comment on the following > scenario:- > > Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 > > Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes A and K of clubs and then claims 13 > tricks saying > dummy is good. A defender of course still has guarded JC. A fine example. This is my first contribution to this thread. I wasn't quite sure how to approach it - since my problem with the usage of the words "normal" "careless" "inferior" and "irrational" is slightly different than the one most the rest of you seem to be facing. In game theory there are things called "inadmissible strategies", which, compared to another possible line, sometimes lose but never gain. Until a year or so ago I equated "irrational" with "inadmissible" or "dominated" for the purpose of evalating claims without statements. The problem with that was that there are many cases where (say) a 100% squeeze of some exotic species, and an obvious 50% line like a finesse, are both available. We want the set of "plays that are both frabjous and irrational" to be empty. The problem is that there are many situations (at least at my club!) where one of these technically dominated lines is in fact normal, and indeed will probably be taken at half the tables in the room. This problem exists to some degree unless you have a table with 4 experts all with flawless memories. The only argument for considering the class of player that I have yet been swayed by is this one -- that some plays that ought to be classed as irrational if we all played perfectly, are in fact normal for mere mortals. The 6NT example you have given is a good illustration of that. If someone claimed without a statement, and I had to enumerate normal lines of play, I'd be tempted to rule making six, since cashing AKAKAK sometimes loses an extra three tricks and never gains anything. The problem with that, of course, is that the claimer has obviously not bothered to take into account that anything MIGHT go wrong -- so can it really be right to automatically give him the benefit of taking a safety play against a hazard he believes doesn't exist? If someone says the dummy is good, then I feel plainly obligated to make them cash their 13 supposed winners in whatever order is least advantageous, and think down 3 is an automatic ruling. Likewise in the original "one trump and two side winners" case I feel it's obviously right to give 3 tricks to the defenders. Along the same lines, I wanted to ask about a suit combination we saw in this thread a day or two ago: AJ87 opposite KT96. We all agree (I think!) that cashing AK, cashing A then finessing the KT9, and cashing K then finessing AJ8 are all normal lines of play. Claimer will receive only 3 tricks in this suit regardless of which opponent holds Qx, Qxx, or Qxxx. Is there a consensus as to whether we award 3 tricks or 4 if there is a singleton queen? (Essentially the same question as the 6NT question. I am assuming anyone who awards 6NT+6 gives 4 tricks here, and anyone who gives 3 tricks here awards 6NT-3 ... I myself am comfortable with 6NT-3, but uneasy about giving only 3 tricks when the queen is singleton.) 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 Feb 13 11:41:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D0fnD08102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:41:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D0ffH08098 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:41:42 +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 g1D0WQn03868 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:32:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:29:29 -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 From: "Ted Ying" > > As one of the people in favor of least favorable result > for offender, I second the vote for correct (declarer > loses last 3 tricks). > I agree, under the given circumstances. However, it's hard to make a general rule that covers all circumstances. 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 Feb 13 12:11:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D1BCe08133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:11:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1D1B2H08129 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1D11hL19903 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:01:43 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202130101.g1D11hL19903@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:01:43 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Barton" at Feb 12, 2002 11:38:04 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 I am one of the hawks as well. I vote with the least favorable ruling of down 3. If declarer thought it mattered, declarer would have specified "dummy is good...playing clubs first" but obviously didn't. And I live by my own rules. Last night in a team game, I was playing a cold 4S contract and made an early erroneous claim assuming trumps were out. Although I could still have made it if I knew about the missing trump, I hadn't mentioned the outstanding trump (having missed RHO discard on the second round of the suit) and so I conceded down one assuming that I would play in the least favorable order. Everyone at the table (my partner included) agreed with the result of down 1 and we went on with the next hand. Note, all cautious plays would make 10 tricks on this hand, but I assumed that I would not be cautious as I had failed to note the missing trump. -Ted. > From: "David Barton" > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:38:04 -0000 > > To help clarify my thinking could someone comment on the following > scenario:- > > Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 > > Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes A and K of clubs and then claims 13 > tricks saying > dummy is good. A defender of course still has guarded JC. > > Now it would not be irrational (or even careless or inferior) to cash any or > all of the non > club AK's before playing the QC (since the clubs are believed to be good). > However for any class of player it would not be normal. > ie I believe that playing anything other than the QC at this point belongs > to the set of rational > non normal plays that certain people have speculated is empty. > > I would rule 6NT making 12. Presumably the hawks would rule it down several. > But on what basis? > > Comments please. > > David@Barton-Bramhall.fsnet.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 Feb 13 19:27:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D8QGx18092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:26:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03bw.bigpond.com (mta03bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D8Q9H18088 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:26:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.81]) by mta03bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GRGPO100.953 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-182.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.182]) by bwmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 38/423364); 13 Feb 2002 18:16:49 Message-ID: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:15:09 +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 Ted Ying renamed the thread: Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing >with the original ruling which started the thread? > >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump >and 2 winning Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? Correct IMO. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 19:28:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D8RtP18104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:27:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D8RlH18100 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:27:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47900.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1D8IOc27766 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:18:24 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6A2167.2060000@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:18:47 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212094322.00b11100@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 04:55 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> > > Herman asserts that x is in A. > > I reject that assertion on the grounds that A is logically empty. > No Eric, logic does not come into it. There is no reason to say that it is logically empty. You were saying that the set is practically empty and were asking for an example. Then you reject the example for no better reason than because you say that the set ought to be logically empty. But you have never given a logical reason why the set of rational non-frabjous plays should be empty. Because there is none. > Herman tells me that I must wrong; A cannot be empty, because it > contains x. > > Which of us is going around in circles? > You are. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 19:37:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D8bZb18150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:37:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D8bQH18146 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:37:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47900.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1D8Rxc06411 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:27:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6A23A6.8000504@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:28:22 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212094322.00b11100@pop.starpower.net> 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: > At 04:55 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: > > > > I have neither said nor disputed that playing upside-down is > irrational. I have said that the ACBL has said that it is irrational, > and therefore not frabjous. I have said that that is a legitimate > finding, which I follow when I am called upon to adjudicate a claim. I > do this without any need to consider whether or not whether I not *I* > personally believe it to be irrational. It doesn't matter, as long as I > believe the proposition that IF it is irrational, THEN it is not frabjous. > >> Well, they have labeled it non-frabjous, they have not told us why. > > > They have told us why. They have told us that they labeled it > non-frabjous because they find it to be irrational. > >> The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without saying why. >> >> Now either: >> - it is irrational >> - it is rational but abnormal >> - the EBLAC was wrong >> >> I know which one you are voting for. > > > These are not mutually exclusive; my feelings about the first and second > have nothing to do with the third. The question, as with the ACBL's > top-down guideline, is not whether the EBLAC's decision was correct, but > rather whether it was legitimate, i.e. justified by the words of the Law. > > They have presumably used one or the other of the two sets of premises > suggested in Herman's list: > > (1) (a) Trumps first is irrational. (b) If trumps first is irrational, > then it is by law not frabjous. > > (2) (a) Trumps first is rational but abnormal. (b) If trumps first is > rational but abnormal, then it is by law not frabjous. > Indeed either one. We don't know which one. Neither do we know which line of reasoning the ACBL has used. Personally I don't believe it matters. In both instances there is a guideline that the play is non-normal. > My personal opinion of these statements is: > > I disagree with (1a), but I do not believe it is directly pertinent to > the matter at issue. > Yes it is. It is you who keeps suggesting that the EBLAC is wrong, no matter what. If this is just a personal disagreement, then there is no need to go on for 200 messages about it. You claim however that it is logically provable that this line is rational. And I tend to agree. > I agree with (1b); I believe that this is indisputable as the Law is > written. > Of course. > I lean towards agreeing with (2a), although I have reservations, but do > not believe it is directly pertinent to the matter at issue. > Of course it is. > I disagree with (2b), and believe it to be the key point of contention > here. > OK, we agree on something. > Now if the EBLAC have used line of reasoning (1), then Herman is correct > that their decision is analogous to the ACBL's top-down guideline. But, > unless I've totally misread Herman's arguments, he has been justifying > the decision using (2) (if that's not the case, we have surely wasted a > lot of words arguing about the wrong thing, and (heaven help us!) need > to start all over again). Now Herman seems to be saying that (2) is his > own line of reasoning in support of the committee decision; the > committee has not told us what its line of reasoning was. > Yes, the committee has simply ruled that the line is not frabjous. It is you who says that it is nevertheless rational. I say that this is not a contradiction. > I have accused Herman of attempting to justify the committee's decision > with the argument "they are right because they are eminent authorities > and they say so." Now, apparently, we learn that this was not Herman's > justification of the committee's decision, it was, rather, the > committee's own implicit justification of its own decision (Herman > writes, "The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without > saying why."), in which case I owe Herman an apology, as he had no other > argument to make which could be supported by the decision itself, and I > have been focusing my ire, such as it is, on Herman, when it is the > committee itself that should have been my target. > I am merely trying to make you see that you cannot prove with the Law in hand that the Committee was wrong. My argument that the Committee consisted of eminent persons was directed at Sven, in trying to make him realize that this was a precedent that ought to be followed, not against you who was trying to prove that the committee was wrong. > I do not believe that the committee not only decided this case, but > claimed for their decision the force of precedent, after having come to > a decision based on no line of reasoning whatsoever (if I'm wrong, I > leave it to others to decide what level of legitimacy that would give > them). I must assume that they had *some* line of reasoning to support > their decision. OK, Herman, anybody, can someone please tell us what it > was, so we can get back to arguing whether it was right or wrong and/or > whether it was legitmate or illegal? > Well, what does it matter how they came to the decision ? You cannot prove it was illegal. Sorry, you have tried, and failed. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Wed Feb 13 19:54:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D8s9018227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:54:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1D8s1H18223 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:54:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.71.239]) by fep02-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020213084439.DEYO11327.fep02-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01c1b468$34ac7380$ef4765d5@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] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:26:58 +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 g1D8s3H18224 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This thread has been complicated. To me it is as simple as this: Is it inferior or careless to play trumps first? is it inferior or careless to play the side suit first? To me the answer to both questions is yes. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hallén -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 20:01:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D91PX18246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:01:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D91GH18242 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:01:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47900.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1D8pvc29230 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:51:57 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6A2944.7000508@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:52:20 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212081447.00a96820@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212105547.00b121e0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric, you do have a correct grasp of this problem, as this post proves. However : Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:35 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >> >> You don't believe that declarer would always play trumps last. >> Well, the EBLAC does believe that. >> >> Now this is something we can never prove, because no-one would ever >> play this out. >> Which is where the need for a standard decision comes in. > > > There are two different questions here: > > (1) What would a declarer who played the hand out do? > > We know that he might play trumps either first or last. We know that > because there are members of this forum who have seen declarers play > such hands out, sometimes playing trumps first and sometimes playing > trumps last. > This is what I dispute. I believe that any declarer that does play this hand out is not in the same situation as the Tenerife declarer, because there is only one rational action for the Tenerife declarer : claiming. So I dispute the answer that Eric gives to his question (1). Otherwise, his question is the correct one and so is his second one: > (2) What should a comittee assume that a declarer who claimed would have > done had he instead played the hand out? > > Herman argues that these two questions have nothing to do with one > another, and that (2) is purely hypothetical and cannot be answered by > evidence from real life, since declarers who claim do not play hands I do no such thing. I agree with you that the two questions are closely linked, the answers ought to be the same. > out. He argues that it is therefore appropriate to select an arbitary > answer to (2) essentially at random, because we would like to have an > answer, any answer, which, if it were to be accepted by consensus, would > produce consistent decisions from different committees, which would, in > and of itself, be a good thing. > Apart from the "arbitrary" bit, that is indeed my position. > I argue that these questions are very closely related, and that even if > we are not prepared to accept that the answer to (2) must logically be > the same as the answer to (1), the answer to (1) should surely influence > our otherwise arbitary choice of an answer to (2). I argue that if we > want an answer to (2) in order to achieve consistency (which I believe > we do), and we want that answer to be consensually accepted (which I > believe we do), we will accomplish that goal a lot more readily and > easily if we select the answer to (1) to be our presumptive answer to > (2), notwithstanding that we may not believe this choice to be forced > upon us by either logic or the Law, than if we select some other answer > to (2) arbitrarily and randomly, which is what the EBLAC has apparently > done. > Wrong, I agree that the answers ought to be the same. But your answer to (1) is not the same as what the EBLAC thought of it. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Wed Feb 13 20:15:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D9FeQ18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:15:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D9FTH18265 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:15:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47900.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1D96Dc12806 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:06:13 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:06:36 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I now realize why this thread has been so long. Eric Landau wrote: > > If the rationale for the EBLAC decision was as Grattan represents it, > their decision was legitimate, although I personally think it was > wrong. If the rationale was as Herman has been representing it, it is > illegitimate. > > IOW, if the committee indeed said that "it would be irrational to play > the second trump", and consequently ruled not to impose that line on > this declarer, then I disagree, but that's my opinion, and the committee > is entitled to theirs. If they said that it would not be irrational, > but nevertheless should not be imposed on this declarer for some other > reason, then I believe that the laws do not provide the necessary > justification for their decision. > Eric, you have changed your tune (I think). I distinctly remember you (or maybe it was someone else) using a definition for the word "rational" and "proving" that playing trumps first was not irrational. I agree with that statement, but don't believe it matters, since plays that are "rational" by that definition can be non-normal still. If however, "irrational" includes "rational, but never done", then of course we are again on the same course. Call the play irrational or never-done, in any case it is ruled non-frabjous. So Eric, your attempts at proving the ruling illegal have come to nothing, and that what remains is your belief it is simply wrong, because it is either "never-done" or it isn't. So I think we can now summarize. We have arrived at a few conclusions. There is a class of actions, presumably non-empty, that are "never-done". It is not important whether we call these actions "irrational" or "abnormal". In either case are they to be considered non-frabjous, or to use the Law word "not normal". We disagree on whether playing trumps last is "never-done" or not. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Wed Feb 13 20:17:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1D9HDO18281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:17:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D9H5H18277 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:17:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47900.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1D97ac14149 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:07:36 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6A2CEF.4020701@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:07:59 +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: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Count me as a non-hawk. Down one. Ted Ying wrote: > As one of the people in favor of least favorable result > for offender, I second the vote for correct (declarer > loses last 3 tricks). > > -Ted. > > >>From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:30:39 -0000 >> >>Richard E. Harris wrote: >> >>>It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please >>>start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? >>> >>******************************* >> >>I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where >>we started. This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of >>you for your opinions. >> >>Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing >>with the original ruling which started the thread? >> >>Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of >>voting consensus? >> >> >>Original problem: >> >>Spades are trumps. >>Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. >>She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". >> >>The defenders have a master trump. >>Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >>If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >>If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. >> >>The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >>Correct? >> >>I vote for 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 13 22:17:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DBGR022570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:16:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DBGGH22536 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:16:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1DB6xa16336 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:06:59 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:06 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <200202122217.RAA07192@cfa183.harvard.edu> Just a quick question for everyone. Had you personally been the perpetrator of the phrase: normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. Would you, at that time, have felt the need to clarify it with. normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational, it does not include the abnormal. I find it hard to believe that the original writers actually believed irrational to be the opposite of normal. I am quite happy for ACs to exclude lines from consideration on the grounds of abnormality or irrationality. Obviously each case is ruled on its own merits and should not be seen as creating any but the most general of precedents. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 13 22:18:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DBI7N22924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:18:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DBHwH22897 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:17:58 +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 MAA14470; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:05:52 +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 MAA13734; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:08:41 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020213113351.00a6fc50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:12:14 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cookery and the laws of duplicate bridge In-Reply-To: <002501c1b40a$34608d20$134ce150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:23 12/02/2002 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I must add 'normal' to my list of words to be excised > from the rules of any game and to be remedied with a > specific. AG : according to Levy-Strauss, "a game is totally determined by its set of rules", eg the characteristic of a game is that it's disconnected of the real life. However, "normal" and "according to the rules" are different things. If any play that complies with the rules was "normal", there would be no need to use the word "normal" : either a specific line is reglementary (playing in rotation, not revoking etc) or it isn't and is penalized as such. The word "normal" must mean something stronger. Perhaps "playing to one's best interests" ? No, this is too strong. If it was, one could argue that "normal" doesn't include "dominated" (with the Game Theory meaning). The laws tell us it should be broader, but don't say how broad. What we've agreed upon, up to now, is that (take < as meaning inclusion of sets) : best < non-dominated < non-inferior < normal < rational < legal. Those inclusions are important : eg one has not to consider illegal lines of play (eg those which include revokes). The question that has been debated up to now is : "is the inclusion normal < rational a genuine incusion or an equality ?" To prove it is genuine, one has to exhibit a line of play that would be rational, but not normal. I claim such a line exists, eg playing a suit from bottom to top when no other player has any more of it. Nobody would do it. However, as long as "normal" has not been defined in its bridge sense, it can be argued that it is normal in the bridge sense, albeit not in the mundane sense. The inclusion non-inferior < normal, however, has been addressed by TFLB : normal includes some inferior lines. The conclusion we've reached is that TFLB would better say what lies between normal and rational. However, I can't follow Grattan when he seems to imply that "normal" should be replaced by "in accordance with the rules". Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 01:05:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DE41L26166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:04:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DE3pH26136 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:03:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-47-218.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.47.218] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16azrg-00079q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:54:29 +0000 Message-ID: <01c201c1b495$ae025600$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:51:48 -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 Herman wrote: > I now realize why this thread has been so long. So do I. It is because, as Ton Kooijman once explained to me, claims are very easy and do not cause any problems. > I distinctly remember you (or maybe it was someone else) > using a definition for the word "rational" and "proving" > that playing trumps first was not irrational. I agree with > that statement, but don't believe it matters, since plays > that are "rational" by that definition can be non-normal still. > If however, "irrational" includes "rational, but never > done", then of course we are again on the same course. Call > the play irrational or never-done, in any case it is ruled > non-frabjous. Whatever else we may or may not agree on, I do not believe that even a member of an EBL AC would assert that "irrational includes rational". It is, however, important to specify exactly why plays are being ruled non-frabjous, since otherwise, rulings will be incomprehensible and threads will go on for a long time. As I understand Herman's position, the Tenerife ruling was given *not* on the basis that it would be irrational to play the trump, but on the basis that it would be abnormal. It is also important to realise that, in the context of the Tenerife ruling, the question of whether there exist rational but abnormal plays does not in fact arise. If a play is ruled abnormal, it does not matter whether or not it is rational - it is simply not admissible. Here is an extract from the text of the appeal: The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last. It will be noted that the committee has formed no judgement as to whether the play of the trump first would be rational; it simply says that it would not be normal. It is *not* using this word as a synonym for "rational", since - as Grattan has said - the footnote does not redefine "normal" as the opposite of "irrational". Rather, the footnote says that irrational plays are excluded from the set of normal plays - but abnormal plays are also excluded from the set of normal plays, whether or not they are rational. The Law says only that normal excludes the irrational; this does not imply (as I seem to recall pointing out at great length some time ago) that all rational plays are normal. Moreover, the question of whether or not all rational plays actually *are* normal is of no relevance to the present discussion. It is not necessary, as Eric and others assert, to exhibit the existence of a rational but abnormal play in order to render the Tenerife ruling legitimate. That is to say, it is not correct for a director to proceed as follows: "Is this play rational? Then it is admissible." In previous threads on the subject of claims, and in the current thread concerning a hand with AK AK AK AKQ10987, this error appears to persist. If after playing three top clubs and thinking erroneously that the jack is high, it is not normal to play the side winners first, then such a line is not admissible as a basis for score adjustment, whether or not it is rational. Moreover, it is not correct for a director to proceed as follows: "Is this play careless but rational? Then it is admissible." The fact that a play is careless but rational does *not* mean that it is normal. This is a more subtle error, because the wording of the footnote: "normal includes the careless... but not the irrational" leads on its own to the conclusion that all rational careless plays are indeed normal. However, as Grattan has said, the footnote qualifies rather than redefines "normal". It is not the case that any carelss or inferior line of play may be admitted simply because it is rational - it must also be normal. That, at least, is the "Tenerife position". In my view, as I may have mentioned, it is legal. It is also foolish and dangerous, for it means that each claim must be considered *first and foremost* not according to some established algorithm or procedure, but according to some subjective judgement by an individual or a group of individuals as to whether or not a line of play is normal for an individual claimer. This is not to say that is was wrong for the Tenerife AC to behave in this way - the AC is a most able group of people, and they were giving a carefully considered ruling in the case of a player of the highest calibre. What they did was perfectly justified. But what they did simply *cannot* be emulated by the average director or AC, ruling as often as not in the case of a player whose ability and habits are completely unknown. This ruling was not wrong, either legally or practically - but it *must not* be allowed to set any kind of precedent. > There is a class of actions, presumably non-empty, that are > "never-done". This is not the most logical statement I have ever encountered. An action is that which is done. The class of all actions which are never done is therefore necessarily empty, as is the class of all squares which are round. But I think I know what Herman means. > It is not important whether we call these actions > "irrational" or "abnormal". In either case are they to be > considered non-frabjous, or to use the Law word "not normal". > We disagree on whether playing trumps last is "never-done" > or not. I don't think that's the problem - the question is whether "trumps first" is "never-done" or not. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 01:07:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DE70F26745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:07:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DE6qH26724 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:06:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16azui-0004aw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:57:36 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213082117.00b13a30@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:58:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202122217.RAA07192@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 2/12/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is > > there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the > > class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." > >I would like to know how Eric and David B. would rule in Tim's case: >both a squeeze and a finesse are possible, but the particular declarer >in question would never think of anything but the finesse. Thus the >squeeze is abnormal (in the usual English sense) for this declarer but >certainly not irrational. > >Is the squeeze line admissible ("frabjous") or not? Of course I >welcome comments from anyone else, too. > >Tim and I, and I think Herman, are all ruling that the squeeze line is >not admissible *for this declarer*. I believe the squeeze line in Tim's example is "frabjous", i.e. that the Law directs us to consider it to be a "'normal'" line. That does not mean, however, that we would necessarily have to rule that *this declarer* would presumptively have taken it and award the resulting AssAS. If I were convinced that declarer was a novice who knew nothing of squeezes, could not conceive of any reason why RHO might possibly duck twice, stiffing his K, and was unfamiliar with the niceties of the proper legal procedure for claiming, I would not have a problem with "allowing" the finesse. I might easily find it to be "incontrovertable" that *this declarer*, who, say, started with xxx opposite AQJ10, led to the 10, which won, later led to the jack, which won, and now says "I will take two more tricks in this suit" with x opposite AQ remaining and the lead in hand, has made an implicit but unambiguous statement that he intends to finesse, and therefore I need not consider *any* alternative lines, frabjous or not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 01:10:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DEASo27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:10:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DEAJH27370 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:10:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-47-218.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.47.218] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16azy2-00001J-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: <01d401c1b496$98de8ae0$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <028501c1b0be$53577580$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <3C650CE0.70108@village.uunet.be> <042701c1b16a$a5ff3460$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <04c001c1b220$b81d2560$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <000501c1b242$c8db85a0$6600a8c0@netop7210> <04f901c1b27d$498e4040$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <002e01c1b29f$2d185c80$a739e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:59:02 -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 wrote: > Should it not occur > to us that what this says is to include the careless or > inferior in the normal, but that the condition of irrationality > shall exclude a matter notwithstanding all else in its > nature? Be an action 'normal' or 'careless' or 'inferior', > none of these or a combination of these, nonetheless if it > be irrational throw it out. Higgledy piggledy Grattan L Endicott Said to directors "There's Something you've missed. Now we've established the Tenerife Precedent, Irrationality Doesn't exist." 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 Feb 14 01:22:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DELnv29002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:21:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DELeH28987 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:21:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d506.iae.nl [212.61.5.252]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8222921031 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:12:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <004b01c1b498$4f39c7e0$fc053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3C6A2CEF.4020701@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:06:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One down. Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 01:45:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DEipk03352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:44:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DEifH03317 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:44:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-123-47-218.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.47.218] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16b0VI-0001uo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:35:24 +0000 Message-ID: <021801c1b49b$6590bf00$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <006f01c1b468$34ac7380$ef4765d5@swipnet.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:33:23 -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 Hans-Olof wrote: >This thread has been complicated. To me it is as simple as this: >Is it inferior or careless to play trumps first? >is it inferior or careless to play the side suit first? >To me the answer to both questions is yes. It may very well be. But the *first* question you must ask yourself is: Is it normal to play trumps first? If the answer to that question is "no", then whether it is careless or irrational to do so does not matter. 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 Feb 14 01:46:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DEkEB03608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:46:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f266.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.144]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DEk5H03582 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:46:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:36:45 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:36:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:36:44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 14:36:45.0169 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC478610:01C1B49B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HdeW There is a class of actions, presumably non-empty, that are "never-done". DB: This is not the most logical statement I have ever encountered. An action is that which is done. The class of all actions which are never done is therefore necessarily empty, as is the class of all squares which are round. But I think I know what Herman means. ++++I read Herman's statement, and thought "Hang on, if something is 'never-done' how can it exist in a 'non-empty' class of actions? How can that class of actions be 'non-empty' if the actions therein aren't ever done? A paradox? A fallacy? Perhaps, I thought (that's thinking twice in one day) some one will clarify this. Then I read David Burn's sentence. David thinks (I think) what I think, but he thinks he knows what Herman thinks and consequently thinks that what he thinks and what Herman thinks are not necessarily non-alike (I'm getting the hang of this). I don't know what to think. Other than that the concept of a non-action being in a class of actions which is non-empty despite being filled with things that don't exist is, as far as I'm concerned, a bit of a non-starter _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.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 Feb 14 02:02:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DF2bW04368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:02:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DF2RH04361 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:02:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b0mK-000DB5-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:53:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:24:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] References: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c629226.3cf.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes > He hadn't stated >a claim as he felt the line of play was so blatantly obvious as to need no >explanation. He will know better next time, won't he? -- 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 Feb 14 02:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DFBLx04386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:11:21 +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 g1DF2SH04362 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:02:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b0mK-000DB4-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:53:06 +0000 Message-ID: <$GHVz8C3qla8EwP3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:23:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior concession References: <00ac01c1ad6b$70d68f20$1a71f8c1@olivier> <001d01c1af79$dcd477e0$c26837d2@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001d01c1af79$dcd477e0$c26837d2@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ray Crowe writes >Surely this is covered by Law 68--- > "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks >under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in >progress". The claims in this thread have referred to all the rest of the tricks so they are claims under this Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 02:42:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DFgGC08659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:42:16 +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-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 g1DFg7H08626 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:42:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b0mS-000DAv-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:53:10 +0000 Message-ID: <4W+UniDS6la8EwPw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:39:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove writes >John Nichols writes >>I love getting L25B cases, the players think I'm making it all up. [s] >>Thereupon, North pipes up "just leave it partner, and I can change it >>back >>to clubs" >The comments by North and South both contain such blatant UI that unless >they are very new players (in which case much education is in order) I would >award them a PP in addition to limiting their result. Normally I subscribe to this theory, but I feel this case is an exception. Tony is right. Law 25B is the only Law in the book that I can think of that was written [apparently] just for better and more experienced players, and to give an edge to players with a knowledge of the Laws. So when L25B is being explained to people at the table, all four of them listening to you in total incredulity and not believing a word you say, and not believing anyone could possibly write this down, I am more sympathetic than usual to unfortunate comments! ----------- You will be pleased to hear that in the Merseyside County Trials I had my first pair ever playing for 40%. [No, I do not do anything like as much directing as I would wish! Any offers? I am very cheap!] I did have a L25B case in Amsterdam last year, but the option chosen was not a 40% one. In this case the player was bonkers. The bidding went 1NT X 2H and she wanted to change the 2H to 2S, and readily agreed it was a change of mind. It was clear she had realised that transfers do not apply with a penalty double! Personally I would have stayed with the 2H bid - after all, what alternative is there with xxxxxx xx Txx Jx ? She corrected it to 2S, LHO failed to realise that 11 counts should take some action when partner has doubled [!!] and RHO [my wife] also passed, reasonably enough. So my wife got -13 imps, and the 2S bidder got -3 imps! -- 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 Feb 14 02:48:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DFmbW09947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:48:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DFmSH09918 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:48:28 +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 g1DFdA919833 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA08197; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:39:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:39:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202131539.KAA08197@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Richard E. Harris wrote: >It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please start a >new thread if anything sensible gets posted? >******************************* > > > >I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where we started. > >This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of you for your opinions. > >Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing with the original ruling which started the thread? > >Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of voting consensus? > > >Original problem: > >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? > > > > >I vote for correct. > Correct. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 02:53:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DFrNT10846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:53:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DFrEH10821 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:53:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-111-209.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.111.209] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16b1Zc-0004O4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:43:57 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c1b4a4$fe907200$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:41:24 -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: > If I knew the 6 was the last trump, of course I might. > But if I held 2,AKQ I would regard playing the 2 first as terminally > stupid beyond the point of carelessness. If I held A,AKQ I would regard > playing anything but the trump ace as terminally stupid. Indeed make that > 4,AKQ and Q,AKQ and I still regard the cases as stupidity indicators (the > 4 is so unlikely to be top and the queen so likely to be that I regard the > "precautionary" order as blindingly obvious). Make the trump 8,9 or T and > you will be hard pressed to persuade me that precaution A is any more > normal than precaution B in a disputed claim case. "Finish this hand for me", says South, "I have to make an urgent phone call", and rushes out of the room. "What's the contract?" you enquire, seeing eleven tricks stacked in front of you. "Seven Spades", says West, "and it's your lead". You look at your two remaining cards, which are S3 and HA. How do you play? Of course, your only rational course of action is to play the three of spades. This cannot cost the contract, and gains if an opponent has the singleton two. Playing HA to trick 12 is irrational, for it can never gain. Even if one were to attempt to modify the Tenerife Precedent by saying: There are some positions in which trumps-first is normal and some in which it is not, these positions being contingent upon the rank of the remaining trump(s) and other cards in the hand one would run into difficulties of the kind encountered above. Tim has attempted such a modification, saying that he would never "normally" play any trump below the five before any certain side winner - but, as shown above, it is a trivial matter to construct an exception to this modification. I have deliberately created an artificial situation in order to show more clearly the rationality of "trumps first" - but if the original South had remained at the table, and was in any way uncertain about the spade suit, his only rational play would be the spade and not the heart. It might be worth mentioning for Eric's benefit that people do not "normally" play that way. The problem I have is this: if one accepts the Tenerife Precedent, one says in effect: in order to admit a line of play, you must first decide whether it is normal, where "normal" is undefined. Now, an expert appeals committee may be in a position to say authoritatively that such-and-such a line is not "normal" for a declarer known to be of the highest class. But average TDs and ACs the world over are not going to be in such a position. "What does "normal" mean?" they will want to know. "Well", Herman will say, "it means that which is not never-done." "Where", they will ask, "can one get a decent game of tiddlywinks? This bridge is a truly hopeless business." 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 Feb 14 04:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DH36G21875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:03:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f19.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DH2wH21860 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:02:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:53:35 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:53:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:53:35 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 16:53:35.0830 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA36F760:01C1B4AE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Original problem: > > > >Spades are trumps. > >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 >winning Diamonds. > >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > >The defenders have a master trump. > >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > >Correct? > > > > > > > > > >I vote for correct. > > >Correct. > Tony (aka ac342) What about making her play a Diamond and then a trump? Then she'll lose two tricks. Just because it is normal, not-irrational non-abnormal and all those other things to play a Diamond at trick eleven doesn't mean that the same applies at trick twelve, does it? _________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 14 04:11:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DHAlJ22718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:10:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DHAcH22702 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:10:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1DH1HY06845 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:01:17 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202131701.g1DH1HY06845@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:01:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 13, 2002 10:07:59 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 Herman and Ben, I presume if you are a non-hawk, you mean making 6. The contract is 6NT and one of the hands is AK/AK/AK/AKQT98 and the C-J is guarded. After taking the C-AK, the declarer tries to claim the rest but the C-J is guarded. The two expected results are making (conceded the C-J) or down 3 (cashing out all side winners and then playing clubs for down 3). -Ted. > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:07:59 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > > Count me as a non-hawk. > > Down one. > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > As one of the people in favor of least favorable result > > for offender, I second the vote for correct (declarer > > loses last 3 tricks). > > > > -Ted. > > > > > >>From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > >>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:30:39 -0000 > >> > >>Richard E. Harris wrote: > >> > >>>It seems to me this has gone on far too long. Would someone please > >>>start a new thread if anything sensible gets posted? > >>> > >>******************************* > >> > >>I appreciate we may have gone so far that we are nearly back where > >>we started. This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all of > >>you for your opinions. > >> > >>Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing > >>with the original ruling which started the thread? > >> > >>Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of > >>voting consensus? > >> > >> > >>Original problem: > >> > >>Spades are trumps. > >>Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. > >>She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >> > >>The defenders have a master trump. > >>Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >> > >>If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > >>If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >> > >>The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > >>Correct? > >> > >>I vote for 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/ > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 04:21:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DHL9A24201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:21:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DHKxH24184 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:21:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1DHBg807473 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:11:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:11 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <002e01c1b4a4$fe907200$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> David wrote: > Tim has > attempted such a modification, saying that he would never "normally" > play any trump below the five before any certain side winner - but, as > shown above, it is a trivial matter to construct an exception to this > modification. Indeed, and DB's modification could be further modified (it might be right to play HA at MPS). What I think it boils down to is that if Tenerife did establish a precedent then that precedent is "Lines can be inadmissible on the grounds of abnormality as well as irrationality". And while we can prepare broad guidelines for TDs/ACs to our hearts' content we will still have to trust them to make good judgements on the individual merits/context of each case. So no progress there then:) Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 04:33:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DHX9T25533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:33:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DHX0H25516 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:33:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DHN4v04659; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:23:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020213111600.00a38420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:24:26 -0600 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200202122217.RAA07192@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 2/12/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is > > there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the > > class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." > >I would like to know how Eric and David B. would rule in Tim's case: >both a squeeze and a finesse are possible, but the particular declarer >in question would never think of anything but the finesse. Thus the >squeeze is abnormal (in the usual English sense) for this declarer but >certainly not irrational. > >Is the squeeze line admissible ("frabjous") or not? Of course I >welcome comments from anyone else, too. > >Tim and I, and I think Herman, are all ruling that the squeeze line is >not admissible *for this declarer*. FWIW, I suppose you can figure that I also rule that the squeeze line is inadmissible for this declarer. For two reasons: 1) Eric's reason, namely that this declarer has implicitly claimed on the basis of the finesse. That is, by hypothesis we have overwhelming evidence that at the moment of claim he was intending the finesse-line. 2) For this declarer, the squeeze-line is irrational, because this declarer doesn't in fact see how a squeeze could work here. [He could see it if it were explained to him, but at the time of the claim he could not comprehend such a line of play.] Incomprehensible lines of play are irrational, since I think it's irrational to make a play motivated by a reason you cannot comprehend. Respectfully dove-like, 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 Feb 14 04:38:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DHcfR26247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:38:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DHcRH26207 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:38:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DHSZv08450; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:28:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020213112747.00a31da0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:30:05 -0600 To: "Ben Schelen" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Cc: "bridge-laws" In-Reply-To: <004b01c1b498$4f39c7e0$fc053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3C6A2CEF.4020701@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 03:06 PM 2/13/02 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >One down. > >Ben Voting on the original case of cashing the last trump first or last, I vote off three tricks. Wow, I get to be a hawk! Respectfully fierce, 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 Feb 14 04:58:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DHvlv29131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:57:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DHvYH29102 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:57:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DHlsv21509; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:47:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020213113023.00a33ce0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:49:24 -0600 To: "David Barton" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" In-Reply-To: <002001c1b41e$5447e160$0200a8c0@David> References: <000001c1b38a$d57296c0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20020211133213.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212165636.00aad870@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:38 PM 2/12/02 +0000, David Barton wrote: > > How about, "(d) 'Normal' means not irrational, and the footnote is > > there to remind us that a play which is careless or inferior for the > > class of player involved isn't neccesarily irrational." > > > > That's my position in a nutshell. It's mine, too, BTW. I just think "irrational" means "so careless or inferior that you shouldn't be stuck with it". > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > >To help clarify my thinking could someone comment on the following >scenario:- > >Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 > >Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes A and K of clubs and then claims 13 >tricks saying >dummy is good. A defender of course still has guarded JC. > >Now it would not be irrational (or even careless or inferior) to cash any or >all of the non >club AK's before playing the QC (since the clubs are believed to be good). This, as always, is the crux of the matter. For those who hold that "a claim is a statement that claimer will take exactly 'n' tricks regardless of anything whatsoever, with absolute certainty" then indeed any random order of playing cards is neither irrational, inferior, nor careless. For those, like myself, who think that "a claim is a statement that claimer thinks with some reasonably high degree of probability that he will take exactly 'n' tricks if he plays his cards in any half-way intelligent fashion", then playing anything other than clubs from the top is irrational. Playing clubs from the top can gain on other lines [if he has miscounted clubs], and it cannot possibly lose. Further, it is _obvious_, even to a beginner, that this is the case. Therefore, it is irrational to play in any other way. > However for any class of player it would not be normal. >ie I believe that playing anything other than the QC at this point belongs >to the set of rational >non normal plays that certain people have speculated is empty. It is not typical. No-one has asserted that there aren't atypical rational plays. But I'll bet you a million dollars there's a declarer out there who has, in fact, played off some of his AK's before returning to clubs, somewhere, sometime. It is the class of 'rational plays that no-one has ever done' which I claim to be empty. [And not on trivial logical grounds.] Now if you mean to say that this is a rational, non- normal play _using normal in the sense relevant to claims rather than in the 'normal' sense of the word_, then to assert whether that class is empty or not begs the question. :) [I.e., if you think that there are such plays you can say this is one, if you think there are no such plays you can with equal sincerity say this isn't one.] Of course, all this would be irrelevant for Herman, because any declarer that cashed an A or K would ipso facto not have claimed, and we are only to consider declarers who have claimed rather than playing the hand out to be this declarer's peers. _Those_ declarers, of course, never, ever, ever play any AK's first. [Of course, those declarers never play _any_ more cards.] >I would rule 6NT making 12. Presumably the hawks would rule it down several. >But on what basis? I get to be a dove again. Making 12. The hawks will argue that you yourself have provided the basis--you have admitted that the play of an A or K, or several, is not irrational, and therefore it is what we should stick this declarer with. The hawks say that it serves declarer right for not making a complete claim statement. >Comments please. > >David@Barton-Bramhall.fsnet.co.uk Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 05:05:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DI5Pl00359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:05:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DI5GH00341 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:05:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-53-149.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.53.149] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16b3dK-0002wg-00; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:55:54 +0000 Message-ID: <007301c1b4b7$6ddd0260$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202131701.g1DH1HY06845@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:54:03 -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 Original problem: Spades are trumps. Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning Diamonds. She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". The defenders have a master trump. Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. Correct? If the TD's personal opinion of this particular individual declarer is that she would never lead the trump until trick 13, then his ruling is incorrect (all lines leading to down more than one are abnormal). If the TD's personal opinion of this particular declarer is that she might on occasion lead the trump at trick 11, then his ruling is correct (there exists a normal, careless, but rational line that leads to down three). If the TD has never met this particular declarer, or has not formed any personal opinion of what she might or might not do in a given set of circumstances, then he will have reason to curse in the roundest possible terms the day that a certain EBL committee met on a certain Spanish island. As, indeed, do most of the rest of us. 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 Feb 14 05:20:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIKUR02854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:20:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DIKKH02819 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:20:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d178.iae.nl [212.61.3.178]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BDF720F46 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:11:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01c101c1b4b9$a12e4c80$fc053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:08:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Norman, You are starting a new thread, that is not normal. Be careful; it is a Solomon's judgment. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > >Original problem: > > > > > >Spades are trumps. > > >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 > >winning Diamonds. > > >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > > > >The defenders have a master trump. > > >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > > > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > > >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > > > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > > >Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I vote for correct. > > > > >Correct. > > Tony (aka ac342) > > What about making her play a Diamond and then a trump? Then she'll lose two > tricks. Just because it is normal, not-irrational non-abnormal and all those > other things to play a Diamond at trick eleven doesn't mean that the same > applies at trick twelve, does it? > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 05:26:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIQio03990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQWH03962 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xo-0001eN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:42:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205204533.03137250@mail.fscv.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206092110.00a82180@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206092110.00a82180@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 20:55 5/02/2002 -0500, Walt Flory wrote: >>Hi David, >> >>"Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving which I remember from >>my youth ..." >> >>AFAIR the Revolving Discards I have encountered were a variation on >>Lavinthal where if diamonds were led: >> 1. a high heart would call for a spade, a low heart would call for a >> club (as in normal Lavinthal), but >> 2. a high spade would call for a club (the next "higher" revolving >> suit ... >> ... rather than calling for a heart: the higher of the two >> suits not led and not discarded as in normal Lavinthal) > >AG : as a mathematician, I offer you a very easy way to describe revolving >discards : >treat the order of suits as cyclic. S > H > D > C > S > H ... >Take away the suit over which you discard. >Then the three other suits are still in cyclic order, thus one of the >remaining suits is just above the one you discard, the other is just below. >Apply the lavinthal principle to this configuration : >Discard high for the upper suit, low for the lower suit. > >Thus, if you discard on hearts, the remaining order is D>C>S>D. >If you discard a spade, a high one asks for clubs, a low one for diamonds. >If you discard a diamond, a high one asks for spades, a low one for clubs. >If you discard a club, a high one asks for diamonds, a low one for spades. > >The inherent weakness of revolving discards is the same as for lavinthal : >you can't ask for the suit over which you discard, which is very useful >when partener is wondering whether to try for a trump promotion. If you want a trump promotion you ask for a trump. -- 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 Feb 14 05:27:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIQve04016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQFH03912 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xX-0001eP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:55 +0000 Message-ID: <16jX8FEkOoa8EwcF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:17:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening 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: <002a01c1af13$cdddf740$fd32e150@pacific> >Grattan wrote: > >> But I can agree that it is >> common to shade strength opposite a passed >> partner - whose responses are nonetheless subject >> to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: for example >> he is not allowed to pass instead of doubling a 1NT >> overcall, following P - P - 1S - 1NT, with a hand that >> would double 1S - 1NT - ? (say 10 HCP). The point >> is made in a WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000. > >I'm not sure I understand this. Supposing we determine that eg. >KQJTx,x,QJxx,xxx is sufficiently common as a 3rd in hand 1S opener that no >special disclosure is required then there is nothing to scrutinise in the >responses. Personally I would only be scrutinising the responses if I >determined that the opener was sufficiently non-standard to merit >disclosure *and* I was seeking to decide between undisclosed PU and a >non-PU based departure from agreements by opener. > >Of course passing with a ten count is generally bad bridge in this >situation, putting pard (who often does have 12-13) under a lot of >pressure - I'd rather not have regulations which discourage my opponents >from playing bad bridge. I played in the Bridge Club Cote D'Azur in Nice last week. xx Kxx AKJTx xxx This hand passed, pass from LHO, 1C from pd, 1NT from RHO. This hand worried, took various things out of the bidding box, muttered to himself and eventually passed. LHO, holding xxxx xxx xxx xxx was pleased with the pass, but expected opener to re-open. However, she did not understand the nuances of the soi-disant ****** Defence [fill your own name in] and passed as well. -300! I had the zero count! -- 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 Feb 14 05:27:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIRF704059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQsH04014 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xY-0001eR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:25:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >It occurred to me that members of the list might like to gather in >Houston next month. If so I would be pleased to do the leg work. The >tournament site is in the middle of one of the world's premier >shopping districts with a large variety of restaurants either in the >mall or close by. Just let me know what you would like and I can run >it down. I am sure that David Stevenson (no, I haven't asked >him .yet) would post things like a map and menu on his web page. Surely. -- 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 Feb 14 05:27:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIRK704071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQIH03918 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xX-0001eN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:09:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <003901c1acba$8b648600$add536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c1ad0e$e14dbc40$eb26e150@dodona> <000c01c1ad13$3df5fe40$8c16b9d2@laptop> <00e301c1adb2$2974f800$9e16b9d2@laptop> <029d01c1ae12$710e6e20$9e16b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <029d01c1ae12$710e6e20$9e16b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >From: David Stevenson >> You must *not* fall into the Southern California approach of thinking >> one hand constitutes an agreement. >I thought the American approach was one instance of a bid created an >agreement. This is a different beast. First of all, it does not seem to be an American view any more. Parts of the ACBL [eg SoCal], yes, maybe. But the ACBL themselves have said it is not so. Second, despite going around it, this is the same effect as what you are doing. We play a system which the agreement is such-and-such. But since there a million hands available to us, there will no doubt be one that at first sight does not conform, but bridge judgement will make it obvious what to do. Now you come along with that one in a million chance and say that proves I am not playing that agreement. But I am. >That is they say: "If you bid this way once with this type of hand then that >creates an agreement." I disagree with that approach but here I am saying >that a pair that will always open a particular hand (or something very >similar) has an agreement or very soon with develop an implicit agreement. No, no, no! How on earth can a one-in-a-million hand develop an implicit agreement "very soon"? Before the next ice age? >Here are examples to illustrate the difference: > >Once I opened 1nt in third seat with a balanced four count. I am not sure >if I will ever do that again even though it happened to be successful but I >might. I am certain that I do not have an agreement to open that or a >similar hand even with the partner that I had on that occassion. > >On the other hand I don't think I have ever held the hand I wrote about AKQJ >xxx xxx xxx but I know that I would open 1S and I expect most of my >partner's to expect that as a possibility. Therefore I think we have at >least an implicit agreement that I will open that hand. In fact one >(unfamiliar) partner recently complained that I did not open a much worse >hand such was his expectation of our implicit agreements. I am sorry: you are saying that any pair that has a perfectly legal agreement will not be allowed to use judgement on very rare occasions, or else they are lying about the agreements. >> Fine: but you do not have sufficient evidence they are playing such a >> system. >Easily sorted. > >Director: Will you open AKQJ xxx xxx xxx or similar in 3rd chair? > Would you also expect partner to open those hands? > >Player: Yes > >Director: Then you have an agreement that the administrators have in their >wisdom designated as a HUM. That is totally unfair. You are trying to find out what they play by specific examples. What about all the other freakish hands? Are you going to ask them every other one? OK, if you ask them a million questions, fair enough, its a good method. But if you are not, why pick the one most extreme hand to prove they are playing a method that they are not really playing? I suppose that if you get a pair that say they are playing weak twos as 6-10 HCP you say they have mis-described their methods because one day they pick up the perfect hand, say KQ10987 xx xxx xx and open it 2S, and partner admits he would too. Of course he would: I would open it 2S playing 6-10, and so would everyone. >Of course a player may answer 'No' but I would expect a player to cooperate. >If a player answered 'No' then that player (partnership) would be severely >limited in making any light 3rd in hand openings. > >In fact just asking if that hand met their requirements for a 3rd in hand >opening bid would determine if they had an agreement. No. Your methodology is not 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 Thu Feb 14 05:27:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIRPq04080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQUH03954 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xb-0001eQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:17:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:36:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205204533.03137250@mail.fscv.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205204533.03137250@mail.fscv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Walt Flory writes >Hi David, > >"Such things as calling Lavinthal discards Revolving which I remember from >my youth ..." > >AFAIR the Revolving Discards I have encountered were a variation on >Lavinthal where if diamonds were led: > 1. a high heart would call for a spade, a low heart would call for a >club (as in normal Lavinthal), but > 2. a high spade would call for a club (the next "higher" revolving >suit ... > ... rather than calling for a heart: the higher of the two >suits not led and not discarded as in normal Lavinthal) That is correct: #2 are Revolving Discards as I have played most of my life. But I was quoting an authority that helpfully called #1 Revolving Discards as well. -- 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 Feb 14 05:28:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIRXR04102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIR8H04047 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xn-0001eM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:17:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:40:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton References: <$QE1GoFPfyX8Ew2H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020205111800-r01010800-267ac255-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020205111800-r01010800-267ac255-0904-0109@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 2/5/02 at 12:31 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> I would not like to tell you what that >> publication is called now .... > > >Mad Magazine? :-) Steve Willner suggested defunct. That's 0 for 2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 05:28:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIS3P04171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:28:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQJH03922 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:26:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xX-0001eM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: <7EL0zvDH6na8EwvR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:56:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93 [was: 3rd seat opening] References: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020205110900-r01010800-6dc33e1a-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 2/4/02 at 11:10 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> That's a practical problem, but basically just appeal. It is >> extremely rare for a ruling to have no judgement involved. Of course, I >> hear there are clubs with no appeal method at all [apart from Memphis]. >> I think you have to apply some pressure inside the club if the TD is >> continuously wrong, perhaps to get a local AC if nothing else. > >Okay. I can deal with that. :-) But... If there's judgement involved that's one >thing. But a while back I was discussing Law 24, which gives declarer an option >whether to consider a card exposed by a defender during the auction as a penalty >card, with a local TD. She said "I'm not going to let that happen." To me, >that's a blatantly illegal ruling. But it's not a matter of judgement, that I >can see - it's an incorrect interpretation of the Law. I don't think an AC would >help with that. True. If there is no bridge judgement involved, then an AC can only advise a TD to overturn her ruling. I think it all depends on whether this is a one-off mistake by a TD, which you should just basically accept, or an ongoing problem in a club, which needs something to be done. -- 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 Feb 14 05:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIS7w04183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:28:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIQRH03941 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:27:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16b3xT-0001eQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:19:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 3rd seat opening References: <002a01c1af13$cdddf740$fd32e150@pacific> <005401c1af6d$90c35120$c416b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <005401c1af6d$90c35120$c416b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >From: Grattan Endicott >> But I can agree that it is >> common to shade strength opposite a passed >> partner - whose responses are nonetheless subject >> to scrutiny in the absence of disclosure: for example >> he is not allowed to pass instead of doubling a 1NT >> overcall, following P - P - 1S - 1NT, with a hand that >> would double 1S - 1NT - ? (say 10 HCP). The point >> is made in a WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000. >Where can I find this minute? http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.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 Thu Feb 14 05:43:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIgxU06294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:42:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DIgnH06276 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:42:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-144-29.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.144.29] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16b4Dh-00003t-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:33:30 +0000 Message-ID: <009101c1b4bc$ae639e20$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020213111600.00a38420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:31:01 -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 Someone (apologies for having lost the thread) wrote: > >I would like to know how Eric and David B. would rule in Tim's case: > >both a squeeze and a finesse are possible, but the particular declarer > >in question would never think of anything but the finesse. Thus the > >squeeze is abnormal (in the usual English sense) for this declarer but > >certainly not irrational. Is this the case you mean? Declarer, who has previously successfully finessed against the HK by leading to HJ and then proceeded to cash winners ending in hand at this position. - AQ - - - J Kx x - - - - T x - - Claims with "and two heart tricks". Just for drill, we imagine a director at the table hearing objections to the claim. West says: "You haven't got two heart tricks." South says: "I'm going to finesse the queen." "You didn't say that at the time", says East, and everyone agrees that this is so. Now, we have an unstated line of play proposed by the claimer. The director must decide whether there exists an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. There is only one candidate here (since South's statement precluded the possibility that she would play a spade), and that is a heart to the ace. Is this normal? Would this declarer ever do it? Tim postulates two cases: a declarer who might do it (because he might play for the squeeze to have worked); and a declarer who would "never" do it because the finesse worked last time. In the first case, a heart to the ace is obviously normal and - since it is not irrational - it is admissible. This declarer is down one. In the second case, the director might (in accordance with the Tenerife Principle) rule that a heart to the ace is not normal, and therefore not admissible. But wait. There is another Law dealing specifically with questions of "finesse or drop". Law 70E implies that the question here is whether it would be irrational for declarer not to repeat the heart finesse, but instead to play for East earlier to have ducked HK and later to have been squeezed in the majors. This law raises no question of whether such play would be normal; it does not say "...or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be abnormal or irrational". Hence, L70E enjoins the director to consider *only* whether an unstated line of play is rational, not whether it is normal. Is it rational to play a heart to the ace? For this class of player, probably not (there would be no reason to do it, and every reason not to do it). So the director might conclude, and thus rule the line of a heart to the ace irrational (and hence abnormal, and hence inadmissible). There is, however, a major difficulty here. We have said that L70D means that a director may not admit a line of play that is not normal, whether or not it is rational. But L70E implies that a director must admit a line of play that may not be normal, so long as it is rational - but only in "finesse or drop" cases. Now, which of these Laws has priority? 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 Feb 14 05:44:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIi0J06467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:44:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g1DIhlH06437 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.39.83] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16b4A0-000B21-00; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:29:41 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c1b4bd$75d386a0$5327e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1B420.0E044AC0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Barton's relief (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:02:26 -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: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > David Barton asked: > > Contract is 6NT with dummy holding AK AK AK AKQT987 > ------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > > Count me among the hawks then ... 6NT - 3. > > If declarer thinks all his remaining cards are equal then > it is not irrational for him to cash his outside AK's before > he cashes his remaining Club winners. > +=+ We should be grateful to change the subject line at this point. Automatic deletion is already in mode. Set views of hawks will not change. Interest lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. ~ 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 Feb 14 05:44:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DIi1p06471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:44:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DIhmH06440 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:43:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.39.83] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16b4A2-000B21-00; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:29:43 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c1b4bd$76e93c60$5327e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:32:26 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > True. I got the impression from Herman's > posts that he was reporting the logic behind the > committee's decision when he suggested that the > trump-first line should not be imposed because it > was "not normal" or because "nobody ever does it", > rather than because it was irrational. > > > I have viewed all the debate about > >normality and abnormality with much > >interest, but as I stated at the start > >irrationality was the key issue. > > That is what I have said above. I think we agree, > but are using different words. > > If the rationale for the EBLAC decision was as > Grattan represents it, their decision was legitimate, > although I personally think it was wrong. If the > rationale was as Herman has been representing it, > it is illegitimate. > +=+ I do think we agree on the questions of legitimacy and illegitimacy. I cannot say, of course, but maybe Herman supported the decisions of the AC (which were consensual) on his view of 'normality' - I think he possibly used the word 'normal' in the discussion; I do have the experience to wrap decisions in legitimacy (especially where they may prove controversial) and I took good care to repeat at a late stage the word 'irrational' that someone had introduced and supported the findings on that basis. It is not that I disagree with Herman when he says that if something is not normal it lies outside the scope of 'normal' in 70D; clearly it does. But 'normal' is capable of wide-ranging interpretation: for example a line may be normal but to follow it in given circumstances irrational. I did once step into these discussions to chide DB for 'believing' HDW, but he did not let on that he recognized I was not wholly at one with the view expounded by HDW of the basis on which the committee did what it did. A feature of the case is that the chairman of the AC is the most hawkish AC chairman that I have experienced world-wide, but a sound chairman for all that. I share the view I have read here that the subject is now overcooked. ~ 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 Feb 14 06:02:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DJ2ZX08850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:02:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DJ2PH08830 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:02:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b4Wi-0006ay-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:53:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213121334.00b22cc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:53:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C6A23A6.8000504@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212094322.00b11100@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:28 AM 2/13/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 04:55 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >> >>I have neither said nor disputed that playing upside-down is >>irrational. I have said that the ACBL has said that it is >>irrational, and therefore not frabjous. I have said that that is a >>legitimate finding, which I follow when I am called upon to >>adjudicate a claim. I do this without any need to consider whether >>or not whether I not *I* personally believe it to be irrational. It >>doesn't matter, as long as I believe the proposition that IF it is >>irrational, THEN it is not frabjous. >> >>>Well, they have labeled it non-frabjous, they have not told us why. >> >>They have told us why. They have told us that they labeled it >>non-frabjous because they find it to be irrational. >> >>>The EBLAC has labeled something else non-frabjous, without saying why. >>> >>>Now either: >>>- it is irrational >>>- it is rational but abnormal >>>- the EBLAC was wrong >>> >>>I know which one you are voting for. >> >>These are not mutually exclusive; my feelings about the first and >>second have nothing to do with the third. The question, as with the >>ACBL's top-down guideline, is not whether the EBLAC's decision was >>correct, but rather whether it was legitimate, i.e. justified by the >>words of the Law. >>They have presumably used one or the other of the two sets of >>premises suggested in Herman's list: >>(1) (a) Trumps first is irrational. (b) If trumps first is >>irrational, then it is by law not frabjous. >>(2) (a) Trumps first is rational but abnormal. (b) If trumps first >>is rational but abnormal, then it is by law not frabjous. > >Indeed either one. We don't know which one. Neither do we know which >line of reasoning the ACBL has used. Herman, you are wrong. For the fourth or fifth time, THE ACBL HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IT CONSIDERS CASHING SUITS OTHER THAN FROM THE TOP DOWN TO BE IRRATIONAL. Now you can either accept this statement or reject it, but you cannot continue to insist that they didn't say it. >Personally I don't believe it matters. In both instances there is a >guideline that the play is non-normal. OK, Herman, I'll concede this: The play is non-normal. But for an expert who has mastered squeeze technique to take a 50% finesse instead of an easy 100% squeeze line is non-normal too. That is not the "guideline" we're talking about here. What we are talking about, in your own words, is: >Yes, the committee has simply ruled that the line is not frabjous. I do not concede that the line is not frabjous. You persist in equating "non-normal" with "not frabjous", freely substituting one for the other, as you have done here in telling us what the "guideline" is. You are implicitly stating that, for ruling purposes, they are the same thing. I disagree. >I am merely trying to make you see that you cannot prove with the Law >in hand that the Committee was wrong. FTR, I have never said that the committee made a wrong ruling. AFAICR, the details of the particular appeal before them have not been posted in this forum. As a matter of fact, *I don't even know what the committee's ruling was*! It is certainly possible that, in the particular case before them, they awarded an AssAS with which neither I nor anyone else in this forum would quarrel. I have said that "the committee was wrong", but when I said that I was assuming that your representation of the what the committee said was indeed what the committee said. From the direct evidence available to me, the committee may have been 100% correct and entirely above reproach. But if that is the case, you have vastly misrepresented what they have said. Allow me to attempt to restate what I believe you have said. If there is anything in the following five-part restatement which you have not said, let me know; it may be that I owe you the humblest of apologies. "(a) According to the EBLAC, (b) it is 'non-normal' for a declarer who holds what he believes to be the only remaining trump and all side winners not to hold his trump until the end. (c) It may or may not be irrational, but (d) it doesn't matter. (e) It is not frabjous." Clearly, if you have not said (a), then I cannot draw from what you have said the conclusion that the committee was wrong. If you have said only, not speaking for the committee, (b) through (e), then I believe that *you* are wrong. I have not "go[ne] on for 200 messages" (a slight exaggeration, perhaps) to argue that "the committee was wrong". I have done so to argue that *(d) above is wrong*, and that (e), which may be right or wrong, cannot be concluded from (b) without assuming (d). Now, Grattan has represented the committee's decision very differently. If I understand what he has said, it could be restated as follows: "(a) According to the EBLAC, (b) for this particular declarer on this particular hand, (c) it would be irrational not to hold his last trump until the end. (d) For him to not do so is not frabjous." As I do not know the details of the case, I cannot possibly quarrel with any of the above. Now I assume that Herman and Grattan are talking about the same committee and the same ruling on the same appeal. Do you, Herman, really believe that I am so irrational that I keep changing my mind about the correctness or legality of that ruling depending on whether I am reading your posts or Grattan's? >Well, what does it matter how they came to the decision ? To the question of whether the committee's decision on the case at hand was or was not the correct one, it doesn't matter at all. To the question of whether the committee's decision on the case at hand can have any possible relevance to any other committee or any other case, it not only matters, it is the only thing that matters. >You cannot prove it was illegal. Sorry, you have tried, and failed. Wrong again, Herman. I have not tried to prove it was illegal. I have not even tried to prove it was wrong. I have tried to prove that it was what I call "illegitmate", meaning not justified in accordance with the laws. From the responses we have seen so far to Fearghal's "poll", it even looks like I may well have succeeded. "The Landau family appeals committee met yesterday to decide on the matter of Eric's hair, and have issued the following statement: 'American male bridge players over the age of 50 are all bald. Eric is an American, he is male, he is 57 years old, and he plays bridge. Our decision is that Eric is bald.'" To argue that the committee "was right" (i.e. that what they have said is true) would be patently and provably absurd. To argue that the committee's *decision* "was wrong" (i.e. that Eric has a full head of hair) would be equally patently and provably absurd. If every time I assert that "the committee was wrong", Herman tells me that I am insisting that the committee's *decision* was wrong, then he does not understand the difference, and we have no rational basis for further discussion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 06:04:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DJ4hx09148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:04:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01bw.bigpond.com (mta01bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DJ4ZH09130 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:04:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mta01bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GRHJ8200.D8W for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:55:14 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-135.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.135]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 29/3288113); 14 Feb 2002 04:55:14 Message-ID: <00cb01c1b4bf$bca57dc0$87d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:53:33 +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 Burn wrote: >If the TD has never met this particular declarer, or has not formed any >personal opinion of what she might or might not do in a given set of >circumstances, then he will have reason to curse in the roundest >possible terms the day that a certain EBL committee met on a certain >Spanish island. As, indeed, do most of the rest of us. not if the TD lives in Australia. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 06:06:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DJ6EO09340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:06:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DJ64H09321 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:06:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b4aG-0007F7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:56:48 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208170219.00affe20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 17:33:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202081652.LAA22259@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 2/8/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > Steve sets forth two premises. The first, "'trumps first' conflicts > > with the explicit L70C", is precisely the subject of debate. > >Not in the case where declarer's error was overlooking a small trump. >We shall all rule "one trick to defense" in that case. We shall indeed. But not based on "trumps first". Those or us who disagree with the "trumps first" rule would base their ruling on "trumps first, or trumps last, whichever gives the worse result". When declarer's error was overlooking a small trump, these lead to the same ruling. > > Here's a scenario. You walk into a bridge club and sit down behind > > someone you know. You see she is in 4S, the opponents have taken N > > tricks, and she holds 9/98/-/-. She leans over and whispers in your > > ear, "Trumps are out and my hearts are high, but it's understood that > > nobody ever claims here." > >[I have substituted 'hearts' for Eric's 'spades' in the obvious place >and 'N' for Eric's 'three' to generalize the discussion.] Sorry 'bout writing "spades" when I meant "hearts". But the example changes dramatically when Steve substitutes "N" for "three". It is critical to my scenario that declarer needs the rest of the tricks. Otherwise we lose the analogy to the case where declarer has claimed the rest of the tricks, which is what we must presume when he makes no statement. >OK, Eric, this is a great example. Imagine your friend is suddenly >taken ill, and you are asked to play out the hand. Which suit do you >play first? Let's assume you are playing for high stakes, so you >actually give the matter a little thought, and consider that your >friend might have been mistaken. I'd have to think about it for a while, but I would almost certainly decide to play the S9, having concluded that my ill acquaintance was far more likely to have lost track of a spot card than an honor. But we can consider some clearer cases. With A/AKQ/-/-, or with 9/A/A/A, I would surely always play the trump first without hesitation. Wouldn't you? If so, it can't be correct to presume that a rational declarer, whenever he has one trump remaining and believes they are all gone, will *always* save his trump for trick 13. >If declarer is correct, any play is equally good. > >Playing trumps first if there is a high trump out will lose three >tricks. If a high heart is out, it will lose two tricks. If a low >trump is out, then trumps first will take the rest. > >If you play hearts first, you will lose exactly one trick no matter >which mistake declarer has made. I would surely play hearts first in the example position if I could afford to lose a trick. But I need the rest, and Steve tells me I will have to file for bankruptcy if I don't make 4S, so that doesn't matter. >I hope we all agree that the plays are different, and there is a basis >for calling one normal and the other irrational, even if we don't agree >on the conclusion. Of course the plays are different. So different, in fact, that either might take the rest of the tricks on layouts where the other wouldn't. That's why I don't see how we can call either play irrational; how can it be irrational when it might be the only play to make the hand? Now if it were the case that one of the lines would always take the rest in any position where the other would, then we would have a basis for calling one normal and the other irrational. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 06:12:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DJCLX10253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:12:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DJCCH10237 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b4gC-0000Zc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:02:56 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213135732.00b14aa0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:03:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Previous post re Basic Claim Principle Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Something odd just happened here. It appears that a message which I wrote and thought I had sent to the list last Friday has only now been posted. As there have been five days of discussion on this topic since, that post is now entirely out of context; we have gone well beyond the points I was trying to make in it. I apologize if its appearing only now has caused any confusion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 07:00:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DK0Dl19307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:00:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DK04H19277 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:00:05 +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 g1DJpB530509 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:51:11 -0900 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:50:34 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <009101c1b4bc$ae639e20$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, David Burn wrote: [after quoting a finesse-or-squeeze example hand] > There is, however, a major difficulty here. We have said that L70D means > that a director may not admit a line of play that is not normal, whether > or not it is rational. But L70E implies that a director must admit a > line of play that may not be normal, so long as it is rational - but > only in "finesse or drop" cases. Now, which of these Laws has priority? I have always read these two laws as meaning that if someone claims, he is assumed to be claiming a given number of tricks no matter how the opponents' cards may happen to be distributed, unless he specifically says "taking the finesse" or "playing West for the queen" or "I've already seen 17 HCP from the 1NT opener's hand" or similar. Now, if a claim turns out to be faulty, it's usually for one of two reasons: claimer has miscounted, or claimer has forgotten to check for a bad break. If a claimer hasn't said what he'll do in the case of a bad break, I feel obligated, primarily under L70E, to go out of my way to make him discover his mistake at the worst possible time. (Hence down 3 in the 6NT case.) I interpret "depends upon finding one opponent... with a particular card" as being usable more than once on the same hand, as if it read "particular card or cards." I thus treat it as applying to any case in which the division of the opponents' cards affects the number of tricks claimer might take. I understand some people don't read it that way. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 07:01:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DK1PF19557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:01:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DK1GH19527 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:01:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b5Rg-0002r0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:52:00 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213141527.00b22590@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:52:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C6A2944.7000508@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212081447.00a96820@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212105547.00b121e0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:52 AM 2/13/02, Herman wrote: >Eric, you do have a correct grasp of this problem, as this post >proves. However : > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 09:35 AM 2/12/02, Herman wrote: >>> >>>You don't believe that declarer would always play trumps last. >>>Well, the EBLAC does believe that. >>> >>>Now this is something we can never prove, because no-one would ever >>>play this out. >>>Which is where the need for a standard decision comes in. >> >>There are two different questions here: >>(1) What would a declarer who played the hand out do? >>We know that he might play trumps either first or last. We know that >>because there are members of this forum who have seen declarers play >>such hands out, sometimes playing trumps first and sometimes playing >>trumps last. >This is what I dispute. I believe that any declarer that does play >this hand out is not in the same situation as the Tenerife declarer, >because there is only one rational action for the Tenerife declarer : >claiming. So I dispute the answer that Eric gives to his question >(1). Otherwise, his question is the correct one and so is his second one: I understand what Herman is saying. I was trying to make exactly the same distinction myself; I apologize if I did not make myself clear. Question (2) was intended to be the question that the committee has addressed, and whose answer to which Herman has been defending. Herman argues that we do not, and logically cannot, have any direct evidence from our experience of what we have actually seen happen at the table which answers it, because it is not a question about what happens at the table; he is correct. Question (1) was my own, introduced in the hope of helping us figure out what the answer to question (2) should be. Let me restate these two questions in Herman's terms: Question (1) is: What would "any declarer that does play this hand out" (who would, as Herman quite rightly states, "not [be] in the same situation the Tenerife declarer") do? Question (2) is: What would any declarer who *is* in the same situation as the Tenerife declarer do? If you reread my post with the above clarification in mind, I'm confident you will understand the point I was trying to make, whether or not you agree with it. >>(2) What should a comittee assume that a declarer who claimed would >>have done had he instead played the hand out? >>Herman argues that these two questions have nothing to do with one >>another, and that (2) is purely hypothetical and cannot be answered >>by evidence from real life, since declarers who claim do not play hands > >I do no such thing. I agree with you that the two questions are >closely linked, the answers ought to be the same. > >>out. He argues that it is therefore appropriate to select an >>arbitary answer to (2) essentially at random, because we would like >>to have an answer, any answer, which, if it were to be accepted by >>consensus, would produce consistent decisions from different >>committees, which would, in and of itself, be a good thing. > >Apart from the "arbitrary" bit, that is indeed my position. > >>I argue that these questions are very closely related, and that even >>if we are not prepared to accept that the answer to (2) must >>logically be the same as the answer to (1), the answer to (1) should >>surely influence our otherwise arbitary choice of an answer to >>(2). I argue that if we want an answer to (2) in order to achieve >>consistency (which I believe we do), and we want that answer to be >>consensually accepted (which I believe we do), we will accomplish >>that goal a lot more readily and easily if we select the answer to >>(1) to be our presumptive answer to (2), notwithstanding that we may >>not believe this choice to be forced upon us by either logic or the >>Law, than if we select some other answer to (2) arbitrarily and >>randomly, which is what the EBLAC has apparently done. >Wrong, I agree that the answers ought to be the same. But your answer >to (1) is not the same as what the EBLAC thought of it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 09:00:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DM00j12587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:00:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DLxoH12560 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:59:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b7IP-0004Ez-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:50:34 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213145854.00b1e710@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:51:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:06 AM 2/13/02, Herman wrote: >I now realize why this thread has been so long. > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>If the rationale for the EBLAC decision was as Grattan represents it, >>their decision was legitimate, although I personally think it was >>wrong. If the rationale was as Herman has been representing it, it >>is illegitimate. >>IOW, if the committee indeed said that "it would be irrational to >>play the second trump", and consequently ruled not to impose that >>line on this declarer, then I disagree, but that's my opinion, and >>the committee is entitled to theirs. If they said that it would not >>be irrational, but nevertheless should not be imposed on this >>declarer for some other reason, then I believe that the laws do not >>provide the necessary justification for their decision. >Eric, you have changed your tune (I think). I haven't changed any of my tunes; I have been whistling different ones from time to time. I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about what the lyrics to any of my tunes are. As I respond to what appear to be different lyrics, I whistle different tunes. Lyric #1: "For any declarer who holds what he believes to be only remaining trump and all high side cards to play other than trump last may or may not be irrational, but is not frabjous." (This is how I understand Herman's representation of the committee's position.) Tune #1: That is an incorrect conclusion illegitimately arrived at. I will continue to dispute it until my fingers are too sore to type. Lyric #2: "For any declarer who holds what he believes to be only remaining trump and all high side cards to play other than trump last is irrational, therefore not frabjous." Tune #2: That is an incorrect conclusion legitimately arrived at. I may put forth the case for my opinion, but I recognize that it is only an opinion on a matter with which others may legitimately differ. I care, but it isn't worth sore fingers. Lyric #3: "For the particular declarer in the particular case decided in Tenerife, to play other than trump last may or may not be irrational, but is not frabjous." Tune #3: I have no idea whether the conclusion is or is not correct, but I do know that it was not legitimately arrived at. I cannot dispute it, but will argue with anyone who says that it *must* be correct absent any additional premise which is unstated in the lyric. Lyric #4: "For the particular declarer in the particular case decided in Tenerife, to play other than trump last is irrational, therefore not frabjous." (This is how I understand Grattan's representation of the committee's position.) Tune #4: I have no idea whether the conclusion is or is not correct -- I wasn't there and don't know the details -- but I do know that it was legitimately arrived at. I am willing to assume it was correct, but will suffer sore fingers to argue with anyone who says that because it is correct, we can infer that the conclusion in lyric #2 must be correct. >I distinctly remember you (or maybe it was someone else) using a >definition for the word "rational" and "proving" that playing trumps >first was not irrational. I agree with that statement, I would have said "demonstrating"; I don't claim to have "proven" anything yet. I will do so if and when I can achieve a consensus of this forum to my position. >but don't believe it matters, since plays that are "rational" by that >definition can be non-normal still. If we mean "dictionary-non-normal", I agree that plays that are rational can be non-normal, but I do think it matters. If we mean "footnote-non-normal" ("not frabjous"), I do not agree that rational plays can be non-normal. >If however, "irrational" includes "rational, but never done", then of >course we are again on the same course. Call the play irrational or >never-done, in any case it is ruled non-frabjous. I don't think one can sensibly argue that "'irrational' includes 'rational, but [anything]'". >So Eric, your attempts at proving the ruling illegal have come to >nothing, and that what remains is your belief it is simply wrong, >because it is either "never-done" or it isn't. Different tunes for different lyrics. If "never-done" means "no declarer who would play the hand out would ever do it", that is provably not true, and any ruling based on it is illegitmate. Whether such a ruling would be "legal" or "illegal" (Herman's choice of words, not mine) would depend on whether or not it was coincidentally correct. If "never-done" means "no declarer who would claim would ever do it", that is provably true, but so would be the contention that "no declarer who would claim would ever do something else". On that basis, we have no lines which are available for consideration ("frabjous"), and can conclude nothing, other than that "no declarer who would claim would ever play the hand out". We must find some other basis on which to make rulings. >So I think we can now summarize. > >We have arrived at a few conclusions. Herman has arrived at a few conclusions. I'm not sure who he means by "we". >There is a class of actions, presumably non-empty, that are "never-done". This is "true" only if we define "never-done" over a universe of actions for which this statement is redundant (as by defining the class as lines of play that would be taken by a declarer who would claim rather than take any line of play at all). If we define it over a universe of actions for which it could logically be done, and are discussing whether or not there is a class of actions for which it could, but never would, actually be done, not only don't I agree with it, I contend that we have indisputably proven it to be false. >It is not important whether we call these actions "irrational" or >"abnormal". We certainly don't agree about this. >In either case are they to be considered non-frabjous, or to use the >Law word "not normal". Not when we call them "abnormal", unless we are also prepared to call them "irrational" as well. That's the explicit message of the footnote; a careless or inferior play made by a sufficiently advanced class of player to normally know better is abnormal, but we cannot consider it to be "not normal" unless we are willing to call it irrational. >We disagree on whether playing trumps last is "never-done" or not. Whether or not we disagree depends on what we think "never-done" means. But if Herman argues that it is "never-done" by any definition that makes the question pertinent to the subject at hand, then we indeed disagree. But I think this is a fruitless line of discussion, and my fingers are starting to get sore. Is anybody out there still listening, other than Herman, for whom the question of "whether playing trumps last is 'never-done' or not" affects their view of the value of the Tenerife decision as a possible precedent that can be used in other cases? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 09:04:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DM4of13129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:04:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DM4gH13116 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:04:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:55:26 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:12:27 -0600 To: "BLML" From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 21:55:26.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[24D423B0:01C1B4D9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Ted Ying renamed the thread: >Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >>Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing >with >the original ruling which started the thread? >> >>Spades are trumps. >>Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump >>and 2 winning Diamonds. >>She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". >> >>The defenders have a master trump. >>Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >>If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >>If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. >> I'm with the committe, they were there. Lose one trick. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 09:31:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMUm716425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:30:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMUeH16413 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:30:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA07359 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA13971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:21:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202132221.RAA13971@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >both a squeeze and a finesse are possible, but the particular declarer > >in question would never think of anything but the finesse. I'm the one who asked about this; Tim provided the original example, and David B. most recently provided the specific cards. > From: Grant Sterling (and Eric similarly) > FWIW, I suppose you can figure that I also rule that the > squeeze line is inadmissible for this declarer. For two reasons: > 1) Eric's reason, namely that this declarer has implicitly > claimed on the basis of the finesse. That is, by hypothesis we > have overwhelming evidence that at the moment of claim he was > intending the finesse-line. I can almost buy this reason. Essentially you are saying that the claim statement included the finesse, even though it wasn't explicitly mentioned. If declarer had said "repeating the finesse for two heart tricks," nobody would have a problem. The problem, of course, is that in the example, the finesse is literally an "unstated line of play," and you have a problem with L70E. > 2) For this declarer, the squeeze-line is irrational, Here, however, you are _in effect_ agreeing with Herman and me, although you insist on using different language. The squeeze line is certainly rational in an absolute sense, and Tim originally postulated that declarer would be able to understand it if you explained it. It just didn't occur to him at the time. If you and Eric call it "irrational for this declarer," and Herman and I call it "abnormal for this declarer," what's the difference? The outcome is certainly the same either way. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 09:31:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMVQ316509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:31:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMVHH16487 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:31:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b7mr-000334-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:22:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213165258.00b1bec0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:22:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 06:06 AM 2/13/02, twm wrote: >Just a quick question for everyone. > >Had you personally been the perpetrator of the phrase: > >normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of >player involved, but not irrational. > >Would you, at that time, have felt the need to clarify it with. > >normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of >player involved, but not irrational, it does not include the abnormal. No. But I would have felt the need to clarify it by putting quotes around "normal", just as the actual writers of the footnote did. >I find it hard to believe that the original writers actually believed >irrational to be the opposite of normal. They did not, else there would have been no need for the footnote. They *knew* that irrational is not the opposite of normal. That is why they felt the need to specifically redefine what "normal" means "for the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71" only. "Normal", which is an English word, does not mean "not irrational". "'Normal'" (a.k.a "frabjous"), however, is a special L69-71-only-ese word, which means whatever the footnote says it means; I believe the footnote says it means "not irrational" >I am quite happy for ACs to exclude lines from consideration on the >grounds of abnormality or irrationality. Obviously each case is ruled on >its own merits and should not be seen as creating any but the most >general >of precedents. Tim, I don't believe you can be happy with this unless you do not agree with at least one of the following statements: (1) For an expert declarer who has mastered squeeze technique, it would be abnormal to take a 50% finesse for his contract when there is an easy 100% squeeze to make the contract. (2) For an expert declarer who has mastered squeeze technique, it would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, to take a 50% finesse for his contract when there is an easy 100% squeeze to make the contract. (3) If an expert declarer who has mastered squeeze technique claims his contract without stating a line of play on a deal in which he has a 50% finesse for his contract, which will fail, and an easy 100% squeeze which will make the contract, the AC shall award him his contract. I am curious as to which of these you disagree with. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 09:44:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMiIM18102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:44:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMi9H18073 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:44:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA07973 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA14002 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Set views of hawks will not change. Interest > lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and > usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. I think you will have to have a policy decision on what you want to allow before you can decide on language. The super-hawks will want to stick claimer with the worst legal line of play. (Some even want to admit illegal lines.) The hawks will (perhaps reluctantly) agree to "suits from top down, no crashing honors," but they insist that suit order be whatever is worst for claimer. Doves (I think) want to try to make some guess at what claimer probably would have done if he had been forbidden to claim. The rest of us are confused. Many of us just want a reasonably simple algorithm to judge claims by. Ideally it should be easily explained and understood but not so harsh on claimers as to prevent claims entirely. (It occurs to me that something along the lines of L46B might be one approach. L46B is arbitrary and no doubt sometimes benefits the careless declarer, but at least it is fairly clear.) Are there any official pronouncements? In particular, has the meaning of "as equitably as possible" been explained? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 09:48:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMmZU18815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:48:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMmOH18787 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:48:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1CMsho08179 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:54:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:36:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) References: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >Ted Ying renamed the thread: >Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >>Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing >with >the original ruling which started the thread? >> >>Spades are trumps. >>Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump >>and 2 winning Diamonds. >>She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". >> >>The defenders have a master trump. >>Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >>If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >>If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. >> >>The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >>Correct? > regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first or last, it is certainly careless or inferior to play trump first. 3 tricks. I have watched the whole Tenerife thread with mounting incredulity. It is fundamental that a claim which is flawed costs the claimer unless the action proposed is totally and utterly surreal - irrational - if you will. Surreality includes not playing suits from the top, includes not blocking a suit, but excludes playing AKTxx facing Q9xx correctly. >Correct IMO. > >Peter Gill >Australia. > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Feb 14 09:50:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMofY19172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:50:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMoWH19142 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:50:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA09486 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA14018 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202132241.RAA14018@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But the example > changes dramatically when Steve substitutes "N" for "three". It is > critical to my scenario that declarer needs the rest of the > tricks. Otherwise we lose the analogy to the case where declarer has > claimed the rest of the tricks, which is what we must presume when he > makes no statement. Yes, we presume declarer has claimed the rest and expects to make them. I intentionally generalized the problem, though, to situations where different numbers of tricks are needed. > I'd have to think about it for a while, but I would almost certainly ... > But we can consider some clearer cases. With ... What Eric is saying is that different cases are different, and we can't have a simple, general rule. Too 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 Feb 14 09:54:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DMseg19887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:54:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMsWH19866 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:54:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA10855 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA14028 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:45:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:45:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202132245.RAA14028@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > ...rule that *this > declarer* would presumptively have taken it and award the resulting AssAS. Just in case some other readers are confused, I think Eric mistyped here. I'm sure he knows full well that adjudicating a claim is not at all the same thing as assigning an adjusted score. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 10:03:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DN2fW21293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:02:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DN2WH21270 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:02:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16b8H5-0000J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:53:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213172856.00a975e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:53:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Cookery and the laws of duplicate bridge In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020213113351.00a6fc50@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <002501c1b40a$34608d20$134ce150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:12 AM 2/13/02, Alain wrote: >"is the inclusion normal < rational a genuine incusion or an equality ?" >To prove it is genuine, one has to exhibit a line of play that would >be rational, but not normal. >I claim such a line exists, eg playing a suit from bottom to top when >no other player has any more of it. Nobody would do it. However, as >long as "normal" has not been defined in its bridge sense, it can be >argued that it is normal in the bridge sense, albeit not in the >mundane sense. "It can be argued that it is normal in the bridge sense"; it can equally well be argued that it is not, or that it is only sometimes depending on the specifics of each individual case. Granted, we who direct in the ACBL would never actually argue that it is ever not (aloud), as Alain does, because our sponsoring authority has said that it *is* "normal in the bridge sense", and one doesn't argue with the hand that holds the payroll. But that that is exactly what we must decide with respect to this or any other generic line of play, unless our sponsoring authority has decided for us. The important point here is that, "for the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71", we *only* care whether it is "normal in the bridge sense"; we cannot allow the question of whether it is normal "in the mundane sense" to affect our rulings under those laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 14 10:55:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1DNt1q00273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:55:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1DNsqH00246 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.44.120] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16b913-000C1S-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:40:45 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1b4e8$eaa55280$782ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020213145854.00b1e710@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:19:13 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle .Eric replying to Herman: > > >I distinctly remember you (or maybe it was someone > > else) using a definition for the word "rational" and > > "proving" that playing trumps first was not irrational. > > I agree with that statement, > +=+ 'Normal' and, in relation to a given class of player, 'rational/irrational' are judgemental matters. There may be a belief in the superiority of one judgement over another but I resist any suggestion of proof. ~ 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 Feb 14 13:18:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1E2I9g25710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:18:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f160.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1E2I0H25695 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:18:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:08:39 -0800 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:08:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:08:39 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2002 02:08:39.0537 (UTC) FILETIME=[84C55E10:01C1B4FC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk



>From: David Stevenson
>Reply-To: David Stevenson
>To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au
>Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:25:00 +0000
>
>Roger Pewick writes
> >It occurred to me that members of the list might like to gather in
> >Houston next month. If so I would be pleased to do the leg work. The
> >tournament site is in the middle of one of the world's premier
> >shopping districts with a large variety of restaurants either in the
> >mall or close by. Just let me know what you would like and I can run
> >it down. I am sure that David Stevenson (no, I haven't asked
> >him .yet) would post things like a map and menu on his web page.
>
> Surely.
>
>--

>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\

Good show!

 

A reply from Gary about various meetings is as follows [sorry, no times were given]:

 

The first five days of the tournament are very full for morning meetings.
You might check the NABC site for seminar (meeting) schedules.

The meetings you specifically asked about are:

Laws Commission = 1st Saturday morning
Board of Governors = 1st Sunday Morning
C&C = Monday and Tuesday Mornings are scheduled (slight possibility of a
later unscheduled meeting.
regards

roger pewick 



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 16:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1E54X715831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:04:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1E54OH15827 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:04:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-182-140.btinternet.com ([213.1.182.140] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16bDvA-0005Hz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:53:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: > regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first or last, it > is certainly careless or inferior to play trump first. 3 tricks. > > I have watched the whole Tenerife thread with mounting incredulity. But not with much attention, by the look of things. A director must consider, as alternatives to a proposed new linne of play, only normal lines (L70D). Thus, even though it may be both careless and inferior to play trumps first, if it is not normal to play trumps first, then a line based on playing trumps first must not be admitted. The words "regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first" amount to a dereliction of duty (as well as a woeful syntactical desuetude). > It > is fundamental that a claim which is flawed costs the claimer unless the > action proposed is totally and utterly surreal - irrational - if you > will. I know of no such principle, nor can I find one embodied in or implied by the Laws. 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 Feb 14 19:02:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1E81g102023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:01:42 +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-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 g1E81WH01996 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:01:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.48] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16bGbz-000EZ7-00; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:47:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1b52c$e7c7bd20$302be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Abnormally rational Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:52:13 -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 +=+ Much has been written. Where has it taken us? > > The traditional view is that amongst equal cards it is > not irrational to play any one of them since every one > of them will win. However, it is certainly true that the > laws provide that only 'normal' alternative lines of > play shall be considered under Law 70D, and that > anything irrational is not 'normal' (footnote). But the > laws do not say that what is not irrational is of > necessity 'normal'. We are therefore in the position > that the Director must rule out any irrational line, and > that he must also rule out any other line that he judges > not to be normal. I would say that we arrive in this > position partly because without defining it a word is > used that involves subjective judgements - and > whereas once everyone 'knew' what was 'normal' now > we are less certain. The other contributor to the state > we are in is the authority who decided to pronounce > that, unless he states otherwise, a player is > considered to play suits from the top down: the view > is a reasonable one and does not create the difficulty. > This stems instead from the (valid) demonstration > that in this area the requirement for judgement that > is inherent in the law can be overridden by directive. > What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, > so by the same token there is no obstacle to a > direction that it is "abnormal"/"irrational" in given > circumstances to play out surplus trumps before side > suits. > As for Barton's conundrum, I have not reached a > convincing conclusion yet. I will merely say that if > I felt I could rule in a way that would be in the interest > of the game, I would want to do so - and I am asking > myself whether hawkish lets the opponent get away > with a coup on a technicality. ~ 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 Feb 14 19:24:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1E8NxD05899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:24:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep03-svc.swip.net (fep03.swip.net [130.244.199.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1E8NiH05860 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:23:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.73.6]) by fep03-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020214081421.IGDJ23945.fep03-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: <005e01c1b52d$226fe9c0$064965d5@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] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:56:38 +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 g1E8NlH05870 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To David Burn: But normal includes inferior or careless, so why should I ask for normal first? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 20:44:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1E9i5x19157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:44:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1E9huH19141 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:43:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-31-231.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.31.231] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16bIHl-0006MS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:34:37 +0000 Message-ID: <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:32:46 -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 Hans wrote: > To David Burn: > But normal includes inferior or careless, so why should I ask for > normal first? Do you know, I wish I had never mentioned the EBL ruling in response to Fearghal's innocent question all those years ago (at least, it seems like years). But because I feel that this entire thread is actually all my fault, I have tried to sustain an interest that, like others', is inclined to flag from time to time. Hans's question is a simple yet crucial one, and I will do my best with it. Law 70D: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play... if there is an alternative normal* line if play that would be less successful. *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational. It follows from this that all admissible lines (where "admissible" means "that may be considered as the basis for score adjustment") must be "normal". Now, a literal reading of the footnote could convey the impression that all careless and all inferior plays are "normal". But: [Grattan Endicott] It may be timely to point out that the footnote does not define 'normal' - it qualifies 'normal'. Which is to say that "normal" (the legal sense) plays must first be normal (the English sense), and that the footnote does not mean: "normal" includes all plays that would be careless or inferior... but: "normal" includes some plays that would be careless or inferior... That is a possible (though unusual) construction of the footnote; it is legally valid. It means only that a play should not be rejected as admissible simply because it is careless or inferior - some careless or inferior plays should be considered "normal" even though no careless or inferior plays are actually normal (it is not normal in the English sense to play carelessly or badly). But there also exist abnormal plays (some of which may be careless or inferior), and these are inadmissible because they are not normal. Now, this is extremely important, because it is not how a great many people think to apply the Law. You and John Probst and others have indicated a belief that the Law regards all careless or inferior plays as "normal". That belief is understandable, and is supported by one possible construction of the footnote. But it is not the only construction, and Grattan's words above (together with the judgement of the Tenerife committee) indicate that the Law regards only some careless or inferior plays as normal. 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 Feb 14 21:03:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EA2mj21882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:02:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1EA2cH21855 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:02:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1E9rKb08866 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:53:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:53 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020213165258.00b1bec0@pop.starpower.net> In answer to Eric's question: > (2) For an expert declarer who has mastered squeeze technique, it would > be careless or inferior, but not irrational, to take a 50% finesse for > his contract when there is an easy 100% squeeze to make the contract. This one I disagree with. It's irrational. I don't expect an expert declarer who thinks he is playing with other experts to state a line in this situation. There are certainly players at "The Wood" who would regard stating a line as slightly patronising. I don't worry about it because I know the same players would state with 100% truthfulness if they had, in fact, missed the squeeze. It would be sufficiently abnormal for an expert declarer to claim on a squeeze against known rabbits that I would assume he had missed it. > No. But I would have felt the need to clarify it by putting quotes > around "normal", just as the actual writers of the footnote did. Oh, I thought the quotes around normal were there to clarify that the footnote expanded on a specific word in the law itself. > I believe the footnote says it means "not irrational" I believe it is more akin to "Everyone can play carelessly/take inferior lines at times so that's normal - don't take this expansion of normal to include the irrational - don't worry about the abnormal either". 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 Feb 14 21:21:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EAKnZ24905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:20:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailing.poczta.interia.pl (dragonball.interia.pl [217.74.65.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EAKWH24864 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:20:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id E47FF6018 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:17:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by naos.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3733B7EC7 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:17:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 46EC97EFA; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:17:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 819487EC6 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:17:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:16:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hiya, A nice problem for those who have been watching this interminable thread on a basic claim principle. Yesterday I was playing in a club tournament when this little claim happened: fortunately I was dummy. IMPs, no one vul AQJ10x Jx Axx A10x xx Qxx QJx KQxxx N S 1S 1NT* 2C** 2NT 3NT pass 1NT = forcing 2C = natural or any 5S332 West leads a heart to the ace and heart is returned. West takes the king and returns a third heart, declarer pitching a diamond from dummy. South now takes the unsuccessful spade finesse and East cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing that West follows declarer claims stating "I have the rest". I firmly believe that someone who claimed in this position should have a fair trial and then be shot dead but if that someone happens to be your partner then you are obliged to treat this mental aberration as "an innocent human weakness". East - West contest the claim: East is the proud possessor of 5 spades, West has Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is onside. As for "the class of player involved" South is a player of one of the top teams in the Polish Second Division in contention for the promotion to The First Division (although seeing his performance on this deal you might find it hard to believe). At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract on the basis that South would discover the bad breaks and then would fall back on his only chance of the diamond finesse. Was the TD right? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>Olimpiada Salt Lake City 2002 >>> http://olimpiada2002.interia.pl/ >>> Aktualnosci >>> Terminarz >>> Areny >>> Galerie >>> Kadra... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 21:55:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EAt0A01376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:55:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EAspH01353 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1EAjX516499 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:45:33 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:45 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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: <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > (it is not normal in the English > sense to play carelessly or badly) Maybe. But if you pop into a randomly selected club watch 5 consecutive hands and don't see a single careless/inferior play I think you would find that *extremely* abnormal. Even if you take a dozen experts together it is normal for one of them to be performing below his best. Perhaps that's where I end up "admit only those lines that you think a player might find on his off days". 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 Feb 14 22:17:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EBGqR05194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:16:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1EBGgH05159 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:16:43 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1EB7OP01084 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:07:24 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:07 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy 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: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Konrad wrote: > AQJ10x > Jx > Axx > A10x > > xx > Qxx > QJx > KQxxx > > N S > 1S 1NT* > 2C** 2NT > 3NT pass > > 1NT = forcing > 2C = natural or any 5S332 > > West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > returned. West takes the king and returns > a third heart, declarer pitching > a diamond from dummy. South now takes > the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > that West follows declarer claims > stating "I have the rest". > > At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract > on the basis that South would discover > the bad breaks and then would fall back > on his only chance of the diamond > finesse. A dove replies: Personally I don't think discarding a second diamond from dummy on the last heart is irrational or abnormal. A spade return from E then breaks up any squeeze possibilities (that I can see). If dummy's spades are good enough that East cannot lead one then I award him his contract on the simple automatic double squeeze. 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 Feb 14 22:38:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EBcWw08862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:38:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EBcNH08843 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:38:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 16bK4W-0003Qh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:29:04 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Tim West-meads's message of Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:07 +0000 (GMT) Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:29:04 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In-Reply-To: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> > Konrad wrote: > > > AQJ10x > > Jx > > Axx > > A10x > > > > xx > > Qxx > > QJx > > KQxxx > > > > N S > > 1S 1NT* > > 2C** 2NT > > 3NT pass > > > > 1NT = forcing > > 2C = natural or any 5S332 > > > > West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > > returned. West takes the king and returns > > a third heart, declarer pitching > > a diamond from dummy. South now takes > > the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > > cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > > that West follows declarer claims > > stating "I have the rest". > > > > At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract > > on the basis that South would discover > > the bad breaks and then would fall back > > on his only chance of the diamond > > finesse. > > A dove replies: > > Personally I don't think discarding a second diamond from dummy on the > last heart is irrational or abnormal. A spade return from E then breaks > up any squeeze possibilities (that I can see). If dummy's spades are good > enough that East cannot lead one then I award him his contract on the > simple automatic double squeeze. > > Tim Well, there's no working squeeze since Konrad said that East has the spades and West the clubs, so the menaces lie in the wrong hands. Other than that picky point, I agree with Tim: one down. If West won the 4th round of hearts the decision is trivial: a diamond return at this point will force declarer to decide before testing the black suits. But it looks like East won the 4th round (careless of the defenders if unblocking was possible). As Tim points out, what does declarer throw on the 4th heart? A spade is out and a club discard gives up the chance of a singleton J of clubs. He carelessly (but not irrationally) pitches a diamond and is one down. Now, an interesting question is what to rule if he'd (incorrectly) pitched a *club* on the 3rd heart. I'd quite possibly give him 9 tricks in that case (ruling that blocking the club suit after a club return would be irrational). But you might be able to persuade me otherwise if you wished. --- The day microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 14 22:54:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EBsFu10775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:54:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EBs5H10753 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:54:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-73-241.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.73.241] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16bKJj-0000t1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: <019701c1b54c$c0331640$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:41:58 -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 Tim wrote: > Personally I don't think discarding a second diamond from dummy on the > last heart is irrational or abnormal. A spade return from E then breaks > up any squeeze possibilities (that I can see). If dummy's spades are good > enough that East cannot lead one then I award him his contract on the > simple automatic double squeeze. If you're going to attempt to show off, do some checking first. If the hands are: AQJ108 J2 A32 A102 4 K9765 A983 K1064 K1098 765 J982 4 32 Q75 QJ4 KQ653 then after three rounds of hearts, a spade to the queen and king, and the fourth heart, South cannot make his contract by any line of play at all if he discards a second diamond from dummy, let alone a "simple automatic double squeeze". 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 Feb 15 00:04:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ED3UI21924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 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 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 g1ED3LH21906 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:03:21 +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 NAA19626; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:53:19 +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 NAA21853; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:54:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214134912.00a6d450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:57:36 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy In-Reply-To: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:16 14/02/2002 +0100, you wrote: >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >N S >1S 1NT* >2C** 2NT >3NT pass > >1NT = forcing >2C = natural or any 5S332 > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". > >East - West contest the claim: East is the >proud possessor of 5 spades, West has >Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is >onside. >As for "the class of player involved" South >is a player of one of the top teams >in the Polish Second Division in contention >for the promotion to The First Division >(although seeing his performance on this deal you >might find it hard to believe). AG : School of Burn, once again ? >At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract >on the basis that South would discover >the bad breaks and then would fall back >on his only chance of the diamond >finesse. > >Was the TD right? AG : South could have played the DA first, which is not irrational. One could hope for a squeeze between DK and a black suit. Perhaps it isn't even inferior. It could even work here. But I won't embark on an analysis. The TD should allow the contract only if cashing the DA first also wins, by the way of an automatic squeeze, and if there is no guess about which squeeze worked. 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 Feb 15 00:28:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EDQlA24975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:26:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g1EDQcH24948 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:26:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-006.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.198] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16bLl3-000Hoa-00; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:17:06 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:15:57 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1B559.BCF56480.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Burn'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:15:55 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote (snipped): Law 70D: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play... if there is an alternative normal* line if play that would be less successful. *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational. Which is to say that "normal" (the legal sense) plays must first be normal (the English sense), and that the footnote does not mean: "normal" includes all plays that would be careless or inferior... but: "normal" includes some plays that would be careless or inferior... Now, this is extremely important, because it is not how a great many people think to apply the Law. You and John Probst and others have indicated a belief that the Law regards all careless or inferior plays as "normal". That belief is understandable, and is supported by one possible construction of the footnote. But it is not the only construction, and Grattan's words above (together with the judgement of the Tenerife committee) indicate that the Law regards only some careless or inferior plays as normal. David Burn London, England ******************************** Indeed this is the crux of the matter! *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational. to me this says (very clearly) that all careless or inferior plays (provided they are not irrational) are to be considered normal. It would never ever occur to me that this sentence was saying that only some careless or inferior plays are to be considered normal. Help! Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 00:31:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EDU0X25475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:30:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EDTpH25459 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:29:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bLoO-0004YQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:20:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214080425.00b1cef0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:21:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <01c201c1b495$ae025600$d63b7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@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 08:51 AM 2/13/02, David wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > I distinctly remember you (or maybe it was someone else) > > using a definition for the word "rational" and "proving" > > that playing trumps first was not irrational. I agree with > > that statement, but don't believe it matters, since plays > > that are "rational" by that definition can be non-normal still. > > If however, "irrational" includes "rational, but never > > done", then of course we are again on the same course. Call > > the play irrational or never-done, in any case it is ruled > > non-frabjous. > >Whatever else we may or may not agree on, I do not believe that even a >member of an EBL AC would assert that "irrational includes rational". It >is, however, important to specify exactly why plays are being ruled >non-frabjous, since otherwise, rulings will be incomprehensible and >threads will go on for a long time. As I understand Herman's position, >the Tenerife ruling was given *not* on the basis that it would be >irrational to play the trump, but on the basis that it would be >abnormal. > >It is also important to realise that, in the context of the Tenerife >ruling, the question of whether there exist rational but abnormal plays >does not in fact arise. If a play is ruled abnormal, it does not matter >whether or not it is rational - it is simply not admissible. Here is an >extract from the text of the appeal: > >The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of >normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will >take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be >ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim >statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a >well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high >cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view >of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not >include the trump suit, which is cashed last. > >It will be noted that the committee has formed no judgement as to >whether the play of the trump first would be rational; it simply says >that it would not be normal. It is *not* using this word as a synonym >for "rational", since - as Grattan has said - the footnote does not >redefine "normal" as the opposite of "irrational". Rather, the footnote >says that irrational plays are excluded from the set of normal plays - >but abnormal plays are also excluded from the set of normal plays, >whether or not they are rational. The Law says only that normal excludes >the irrational; this does not imply (as I seem to recall pointing out at >great length some time ago) that all rational plays are normal. >Moreover, the question of whether or not all rational plays actually >*are* normal is of no relevance to the present discussion. > >It is not necessary, as Eric and others assert, to exhibit the existence >of a rational but abnormal play in order to render the Tenerife ruling >legitimate. Either I wasn't clear or David has misread me. What I asserted (or intended to) was the complement of the above: It is necessary to exhibit the existence of *irrational* but *normal* play to render the Tenerife ruling (as David explains it here) legitimate. David suggests that admissibility be determined as follows: (1) Reject all abnormal plays. (2) Reject all irrational plays. (3) Accept all remaining plays. But if there is no such thing as a normal but irrational play, then (2) disappears, leaving: (1) Reject all abnormal plays. (2) Accept all remaining plays. and the rule for admissibility becomes, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which, for the class of player involved, is not abnormal," which is an obviously trivial statement. I do not believe that the writers of the footnote intended it to mean that, nor that they would have bothered to write the footnote in the first place if they did. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 00:49:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EDlpf28066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:47:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EDlgH28049 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:47:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-2-248.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.2.248] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16bM5e-00000G-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:38:23 +0000 Message-ID: <01fb01c1b55c$9e619ae0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01C1B559.BCF56480.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:36:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal wrote: [DB] > Which is to say that "normal" (the legal sense) plays must first be > normal (the English sense), and that the footnote does not mean: > > "normal" includes all plays that would be careless or inferior... > > but: > > "normal" includes some plays that would be careless or inferior... > Indeed this is the crux of the matter! > > > *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not > irrational. [F O'B] > to me this says (very clearly) that all careless or inferior plays (provided they are not irrational) are to be considered normal. > > It would never ever occur to me that this sentence was saying that only some careless or inferior plays are to be considered normal. > > Help! I'm afraid I can't - at least, not any more. There are in fact two differing versions of the Tenerife Principle. Herman's is that to play the "last" trump before any remaining winners is simply abnormal - "no one would do it". He does not, as far as I can tell, consider it irrational - indeed, the Tenerife AC acknowledged that in the particular case, they saw reason to disregard the general and well-established principle that for a man who thinks all his cards are high, no order of play is "irrational", including "trumps first". Grattan's is that to play the "last" trump before other winners would be "abnormal to the point of being irrational". However, he also appears to me to say that there are in fact careless or inferior plays that are abnormal, which should not be considered by virtue of their abnormality. It is as if one were to say: "Vegetables include green things and yellow things, but not purple things". Now, this does not mean that all green things and all yellow things are vegetables, merely that some of them are. It does, however, mean that no purple thing is a vegetable (note to pedants: this is an example - I know what an aubergine is, thank you). You can argue with Grattan that in fact, to play trumps first would not in fact be irrational, merely careless or inferior. You can also argue with Herman that in fact, trumps first is not "abnormal" since some people actually do it. But these arguments have been advanced ad nauseam, and I do not think that more of them would advance the cause of progress. All that I have been trying to do is to establish the logical basis of what is "necessarily true", in order to confirm or deny that Herman's position or Grattan's are legally tenable. I have given my personal opinion of the Tenerife Principle elsewhere; I emphatically do not believe that it is of universal application, but I do not believe either that it is at variance with 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 Fri Feb 15 00:51:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EDne328405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:49:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EDnUH28384 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:49:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bM7R-00074v-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:40:13 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214082458.00b1f120@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:40:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B In-Reply-To: <4W+UniDS6la8EwPw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:39 AM 2/13/02, David wrote: > Tony is right. Law 25B is the only Law in the book that I can think >of that was written [apparently] just for better and more experienced >players, and to give an edge to players with a knowledge of the Laws. > > So when L25B is being explained to people at the table, all four of >them listening to you in total incredulity and not believing a word you >say, and not believing anyone could possibly write this down, I am more >sympathetic than usual to unfortunate comments! I was talking not long ago to a player who was recounting a particularly bad session she had played the previous evening. She is a very fine player, with about 2,000 ACBL master points, and is active in bridge administration at all levels, including the national. She was describing a deal on which she had gotten a cold bottom after passing her partner out in an obvious cue bid. I didn't record the conversation, but from here it went something very much like: Her: I realized immediately what I had done, but there was nothing I could do. Me: Did you call the director? Her: Of course not. I know full well the difference between a mechanical error and a slip of the brain, and it wasn't a mechanical error. Surely you're not suggesting that I should have pretended it was. Me: Did you know that, even so, you could have changed your call and played for average minus? Her: You're putting me on. Me: No I'm not. Would you like me to show it to you in the Lawbook? Her: You're really serious? ... Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 01:13:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EEAsL01662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 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 smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EEAjH01635 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bMRz-0002Gh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:01:27 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214085652.00b1e100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:02:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <009101c1b4bc$ae639e20$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020213111600.00a38420@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 01:31 PM 2/13/02, David wrote: >Declarer, who has previously successfully >finessed against the HK by leading to HJ and then proceeded to cash >winners ending in hand at this position. > > > - > AQ > - > - > >- J >Kx x >- - >- - > > T > x > - > - > >Claims with "and two heart tricks". > >Just for drill, we imagine a director at the table hearing objections to >the claim. West says: "You haven't got two heart tricks." South says: >"I'm going to finesse the queen." "You didn't say that at the time", >says East, and everyone agrees that this is so. > >Now, we have an unstated line of play proposed by the claimer. The >director must decide whether there exists an alternative normal line of >play that would be less successful. There is only one candidate here >(since South's statement precluded the possibility that she would play a >spade), and that is a heart to the ace. > >Is this normal? Would this declarer ever do it? Tim postulates two >cases: a declarer who might do it (because he might play for the squeeze >to have worked); and a declarer who would "never" do it because the >finesse worked last time. In the first case, a heart to the ace is >obviously normal and - since it is not irrational - it is admissible. >This declarer is down one. In the second case, the director might (in >accordance with the Tenerife Principle) rule that a heart to the ace is >not normal, and therefore not admissible. > >But wait. There is another Law dealing specifically with questions of >"finesse or drop". Law 70E implies that the question here is whether it >would be irrational for declarer not to repeat the heart finesse, but >instead to play for East earlier to have ducked HK and later to have >been squeezed in the majors. This law raises no question of whether such >play would be normal; it does not say "...or unless failure to adopt >this line of play would be abnormal or irrational". Hence, L70E enjoins >the director to consider *only* whether an unstated line of play is >rational, not whether it is normal. > >Is it rational to play a heart to the ace? For this class of player, >probably not (there would be no reason to do it, and every reason not to >do it). So the director might conclude, and thus rule the line of a >heart to the ace irrational (and hence abnormal, and hence >inadmissible). > >There is, however, a major difficulty here. We have said that L70D means >that a director may not admit a line of play that is not normal, whether >or not it is rational. But L70E implies that a director must admit a >line of play that may not be normal, so long as it is rational - but >only in "finesse or drop" cases. Now, which of these Laws has priority? I should like to point out that if we were to accept the interpretation of the footnote for which I have been arguing, the apparent conflict between L70D and L70E disappears, and we no longer have a "major difficulty" in interpreting the intent of those laws. I submit this as one more piece of evidence, for whatever it's worth, that my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the L69-71 than David's. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 01:49:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EEksu07580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EEkkH07552 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bN0q-0000nk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:37:28 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214091553.00aac3e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:38:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202132221.RAA13971@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:21 PM 2/13/02, Steve wrote: >If you and Eric call it "irrational for this declarer," and Herman and >I call it "abnormal for this declarer," what's the difference? The >outcome is certainly the same either way. It won't make a difference to the outcome of *this* case. But what about the next one? The next time you meet, you are confronted with a player who was a defender in the previous case. This time he was declarer, and made a claim without a statement. We award a lesser number of tricks than he has claimed, on the grounds that there is a play available to him that this forum would unanimously agree is "careless or inferior... but not irrational". And he says: "I have played hundreds of thousands of bridge hands in my lifetime, and have seen this position dozens of times. Every single time I did [whatever]; not once did I do [the imposed line]. There are five witnesses waiting outside to testify that I'm telling the truth. Now the last time I was in front of you, you ruled against me because you refused to make that declarer take a play which was abnormal for him. Now you rule against me again, because you make me take a play which I can prove is abnormal for me." Grant and I have an answer, and can back it up by showing him what it says in TFLB. What does Herman or Steve say to him? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 01:49:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EEn7g07943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:49:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep01-svc.swip.net (fep01.swip.net [130.244.199.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EEmvH07922 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:48:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.73.196]) by fep01-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020214143928.JNTM23536.fep01-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:39:28 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c1b562$ee21cea0$c44965d5@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] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:21:43 +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 g1EEn0H07930 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thank you, David Burn, for explaning the semantics. The footnote at Laws 69-71 really need an up-date. How should a TD know that inferior and careless only means some inferior or carelessness? The word abnormal is not in the code. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hallén -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 01:59:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EExcR10029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:59:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05bw.bigpond.com (mta05bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EExUH10007 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:59:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.72]) by mta05bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GRJ2JJ00.HKP for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:50:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-26.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.26]) by bwmam02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 11/642576); 15 Feb 2002 00:50:07 Message-ID: <006301c1b566$a7e244c0$1adf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:48:24 +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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >IMPs, no one vul > >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >N S >1S 1NT* >2C** 2NT >3NT pass > >1NT = forcing >2C = natural or any 5S332 > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". > >I firmly believe that someone >who claimed in this position should have a fair >trial and then be shot dead but >if that someone happens to be your partner >then you are obliged to treat this mental >aberration as "an innocent human weakness". >East - West contest the claim: East is the >proud possessor of 5 spades, West has >Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is >onside. >As for "the class of player involved" South >is a player of one of the top teams >in the Polish Second Division in contention >for the promotion to The First Division >(although seeing his performance on this deal you >might find it hard to believe). > >At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract >on the basis that South would discover >the bad breaks and then would fall back >on his only chance of the diamond >finesse. > >Was the TD right? No. As others have pointed out, the contract could be expected to fail, both due to the possibility that LHO would win the fourth heart and put a diamond through, and due to the likely diamond discard from dummy on the fourth heart. Konrad's reference to "the poor man" should say "the lucky man". Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 02:00:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EF0cD10205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:00:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1EF0TH10180 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:00:30 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1EEpAq00982 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:51:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:51 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy 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: <019701c1b54c$c0331640$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > > enough that East cannot lead one then I award him his contract on the > > simple automatic double squeeze. > > If you're going to attempt to show off, do some checking first. If the > hands are: So no doubt EW will appeal my ruling:) I really shouldn't try and analyse hands too quickly early in the morning (although I still maintain that discarding a 2nd diamond is normal). Tx David. Now I wonder, if the DK is in East do we consider a club discard normal too? 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 Feb 15 02:02:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EF2g910531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:02:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EF2YH10514 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:02:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bNG8-0003x2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:53:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:53:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:34 PM 2/13/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Set views of hawks will not change. Interest > > lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and > > usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. > >I think you will have to have a policy decision on what you want to >allow before you can decide on language. > >The super-hawks will want to stick claimer with the worst legal line of >play. (Some even want to admit illegal lines.) > >The hawks will (perhaps reluctantly) agree to "suits from top down, no >crashing honors," but they insist that suit order be whatever is worst >for claimer. > >Doves (I think) want to try to make some guess at what claimer probably >would have done if he had been forbidden to claim. > >The rest of us are confused. Many of us just want a reasonably simple >algorithm to judge claims by. Ideally it should be easily explained >and understood but not so harsh on claimers as to prevent claims >entirely. (It occurs to me that something along the lines of L46B >might be one approach. L46B is arbitrary and no doubt sometimes >benefits the careless declarer, but at least it is fairly clear.) > >Are there any official pronouncements? The ACBL has made a pronouncement that takes the position of the "hawks", at least on the question of top-down (AFAIK, they have not pronounced on crashing honors, but probably because they do not view it as controversial). I do believe that that they have explicity pronounced in favor of "suit order be whatever is worst", at least for certain types of positions, but I'm not 100% certain of that. >In particular, has the meaning >of "as equitably as possible" been explained? Not in the ACBL. They have justified their "hawkish" position as an interpretation of "irrationality", without addressing "equity". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 02:07:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EF7T511353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:07:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EF7JH11338 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:07:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bNKj-0004oZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:58:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214095437.00aac870@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:58:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202132245.RAA14028@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:45 PM 2/13/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > ...rule that *this > > declarer* would presumptively have taken it and award the resulting > AssAS. > >Just in case some other readers are confused, I think Eric mistyped >here. I'm sure he knows full well that adjudicating a claim is not at >all the same thing as assigning an adjusted score. A slip of the brain, not a mechanical typing error, and I may have done it more than once. For "resulting AssAS" please read "score that would have been obtained on the presumed line of play". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 02:07:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EF7Kf11340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:07:20 +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 g1EF7AH11311 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:07:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-167-124.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.167.124] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16bNKZ-00013l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:57:52 +0000 Message-ID: <026401c1b567$b8a58a00$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214080425.00b1cef0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:55:23 -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: > >It is not necessary, as Eric and others assert, to exhibit the existence > >of a rational but abnormal play in order to render the Tenerife ruling > >legitimate. > > Either I wasn't clear or David has misread me. What I asserted (or > intended to) was the complement of the above: It is necessary to > exhibit the existence of *irrational* but *normal* play to render the > Tenerife ruling (as David explains it here) legitimate. I expect that I haad in mind these lines from a previous message: >Herman, with an assist from David Burn, has proven that stipulating the frabjousness or non-frabjousness of each these four categories as above does not logically preclude the existence of a fifth category: (e) Plays which are not irrational, but which, by law, may nevertheless not be frabjous. >If we accept all of the above, which I believe we all do, there remains one question that we still must answer: Are there any plays in category (e)? ("frabjous" is the word I used as a substitute for the quoted "normal" in the footnote, to distinguish it from the word 'normal' in its English sense). This appeared to me then and appears to me still a request for the demonstration of a rational but abnormal play. But of course, you and I have written a great deal since then, and I apologise for not having noticed that you would now like to concentrate on irrational but normal plays. There is, of course, no such thing. But... > David suggests that admissibility be determined as follows: > > (1) Reject all abnormal plays. > (2) Reject all irrational plays. > (3) Accept all remaining plays. > > But if there is no such thing as a normal but irrational play, then (2) > disappears, leaving: > > (1) Reject all abnormal plays. > (2) Accept all remaining plays. > > and the rule for admissibility becomes, "For the purposes of Laws 69, > 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which, for the class of player > involved, is not abnormal," > > which is an obviously trivial statement. Unfortunately, it isn't - because " 'normal' " is not the same word as "normal", and is not necessarily the opposite of "abnormal". Some 'normal' plays, such as careless or inferior ones, are abnormal - just because some people at The Wood play badly by my standards, they do not play badly by their own, thus their normal play is not careless or inferior for the class of player involved. That's why "frabjous" was pressed into service; if the footnote were to say "frabjous includes any play which..." then perhaps the position would be clearer. Since all irrational plays are abnormal, steps (1) and (2) of my procedure can indeed be condensed - at some cost in clarity. I will make one more assault on this problem, from a slightly different angle - and then I hope I can have done with it for a while. Since the word "normal" is the cause of all the trouble, I have removed it from the analysis that follows. I have used the word "admissible" in the context of plays which may be used as the basis for score adjustment when adjudicating a claim. The Law uses the term "successful" when talking about an alternative line of play proposed by a claimer. Perhaps a categorisation along these lines may be helpful. Let us also use, with thanks to Grant Sterling for the term, the word "typical" to denote that which a player would do, and "atypical" to denote that which a player would in no circumstances do. The question is whether to admit an unsuccessful line of play, in place of a successful one proposed by a claimer. An unsuccessful play may be admitted unless it is atypical or irrational. The fact that it is careless or inferior does not render it irrational, and has no bearing on whether or not it is typical. Thus, careless or inferior lines may be admitted unless they are atypical *for this individual in these circumstances*, regardless of whether or not they are typical for some other individuals in other circumstances. I believe that the above is logically consistent with at least one possible construction of the Law. I hope that what I have written previously may be sufficient to exhibit this logical consistency, for I am too weary to go through it all again. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 02:22:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EFLcL13593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:21:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EFLSH13574 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:21:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-1-125.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.1.125]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1EFC4g24737 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:12:04 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6BD3DB.1010107@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:12:27 +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] Re: Barton's relief References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> 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: > > > The ACBL has made a pronouncement that takes the position of the > "hawks", at least on the question of top-down (AFAIK, they have not > pronounced on crashing honors, but probably because they do not view it > as controversial). I do believe that that they have explicity > pronounced in favor of "suit order be whatever is worst", at least for > certain types of positions, but I'm not 100% certain of that. > I don't think top-down is hawkish, quite the reverse. Many of the lines that I see the hawks advocating are quite worse than that. Suit order be whatever is worst seems also quite straightforward to me, and I don't want you to think that, being a dove, I would discuss that. >> In particular, has the meaning >> of "as equitably as possible" been explained? > > > Not in the ACBL. They have justified their "hawkish" position as an > interpretation of "irrationality", without addressing "equity". > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 15 02:44:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EFiN517690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:44:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EFiEH17668 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:44:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bNuR-0004Pf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:34:55 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214101113.00aa7770@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:35:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@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 04:32 AM 2/14/02, David wrote: >[Grattan Endicott] >It may be timely to point out that the footnote does not define >'normal' - it qualifies 'normal'. > >Which is to say that "normal" (the legal sense) plays must first be >normal (the English sense), and that the footnote does not mean: > > "normal" includes all plays that would be careless or inferior... > > but: > > "normal" includes some plays that would be careless or inferior... > > That is a possible (though unusual) construction of the footnote; it is >legally valid. It means only that a play should not be rejected as >admissible simply because it is careless or inferior - some careless or >inferior plays should be considered "normal" even though no careless or >inferior plays are actually normal (it is not normal in the English >sense to play carelessly or badly). But there also exist abnormal plays >(some of which may be careless or inferior), and these are inadmissible >because they are not normal. > >Now, this is extremely important, because it is not how a great many >people think to apply the Law. You and John Probst and others have >indicated a belief that the Law regards all careless or inferior plays >as "normal". That belief is understandable, and is supported by one >possible construction of the footnote. But it is not the only >construction, and Grattan's words above (together with the judgement of >the Tenerife committee) indicate that the Law regards only some careless >or inferior plays as normal. David is saying that the writers (or interpreters) of the law believe that it implicitly assumes that abnormal plays are inadmissible (a.k.a. "not frabjous"). So we must ask ourselves why they wrote "careless or inferior... but not irrational" rather than "careless or inferior... but not abnormal". If they assumed that it was implicit that abnormal plays are inadmissible, then the only sensible[*] answer is that they are telling us explicitly that, in addition to implicitly assuming that abnormal plays are inadmissible, we must also assume that irrational plays which are *not* abnormal are also inadmissible. For this to make any sense, they must have assumed that there *are* plays which are irrational but not abnormal. If we believe this to be false, we have a "reductio ad absurdum" proof that they cannot have assumed that abnormal plays are implicitly admissible. [*] The only other logically possible answer I can come up with, which has been suggested by others, is patently absurd: They are telling us that abnormal plays are admissible only if they are "careless or inferior" but not otherwise. I don't believe that anybody in this forum (or anywhere else, for that matter) favors that interpretation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 03:32:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EGWFl25015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:32:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EGW7H24994 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:32:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bOen-0005g1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:22:49 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214105716.00b28a50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:23:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 04:53 AM 2/14/02, twm wrote: >In answer to Eric's question: > > > (2) For an expert declarer who has mastered squeeze technique, it > would > > be careless or inferior, but not irrational, to take a 50% finesse for > > his contract when there is an easy 100% squeeze to make the contract. > >This one I disagree with. It's irrational. I don't expect an expert >declarer who thinks he is playing with other experts to state a line in >this situation. There are certainly players at "The Wood" who would >regard stating a line as slightly patronising. I don't worry about it >because I know the same players would state with 100% truthfulness if >they >had, in fact, missed the squeeze. > >It would be sufficiently abnormal for an expert declarer to claim on a >squeeze against known rabbits that I would assume he had missed it. That works for Tim at the The Wood, but doesn't work generically. We need something that will help us adjudicate claims when we're sitting on an AC with four total strangers on the other side of the table. Even under what are now generally accepted interpretations of the law, we are not infrequently in the awful position of having to, in order to come to a ruling, make and defend findings as to the level of ability of unknown players. It's a nightmare, but we somehow manage, albeit it may require an interrogation that some would argue violates the Geneva Convention. But if we accept Tim's view, we will be forced in addition to make and defend findings as to the *credibility* of unknown players. (David Stevenson reminds us occasionally that making difficult findings is what we're paid to do, but in real life we have to not only make them, but stand ready to defend them.) That will take our deliberations beyond the nightmarish into the truly Kafkaesque. When a player says to us "Of course I wouldn't have missed the baby reverse double trump squeeze", it's all well and good to say, "OK, I know this guy, and he would never say that with less than 100% truthfulness", but do we really want to have to make such judgments about strangers? > > No. But I would have felt the need to clarify it by putting quotes > > around "normal", just as the actual writers of the footnote did. > >Oh, I thought the quotes around normal were there to clarify that the >footnote expanded on a specific word in the law itself. I think that "normal includes..." would by itself be sufficient to do that. I think "'normal' includes..." warns that what follows is something that would not conform to an ordinary definition of the word. > > I believe the footnote says it means "not irrational" > >I believe it is more akin to "Everyone can play carelessly/take inferior >lines at times so that's normal - don't take this expansion of normal to >include the irrational - don't worry about the abnormal either". Which, once we exclude the "abnormal", leaves us to worry about the "irrational but normal". Which makes sense only if the "irrational but normal" exists. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 03:37:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EGarD25577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:36:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EGahH25543 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:36:44 +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 RAA03587; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:26:43 +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 RAA06629; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:27:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214173012.00a72440@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:30:59 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> References: <200202132234.RAA14002@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 09:53 14/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>In particular, has the meaning >>of "as equitably as possible" been explained? > >Not in the ACBL. They have justified their "hawkish" position as an >interpretation of "irrationality", without addressing "equity". AG : isn't this in contradiction with the first lines of TFLB ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 03:53:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EGrfM26049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:53:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EGrXH26045 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bOzX-0001sz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:44:15 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214113301.00b18c10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:44:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy In-Reply-To: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:16 AM 2/14/02, Konrad wrote: >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >N S >1S 1NT* >2C** 2NT >3NT pass > >1NT = forcing >2C = natural or any 5S332 > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". > >I firmly believe that someone >who claimed in this position should have a fair >trial and then be shot dead but >if that someone happens to be your partner >then you are obliged to treat this mental >aberration as "an innocent human weakness". >East - West contest the claim: East is the >proud possessor of 5 spades, West has >Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is >onside. >As for "the class of player involved" South >is a player of one of the top teams >in the Polish Second Division in contention >for the promotion to The First Division >(although seeing his performance on this deal you >might find it hard to believe). > >At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract >on the basis that South would discover >the bad breaks and then would fall back >on his only chance of the diamond >finesse. > >Was the TD right? No way; not on this deal. In the first place, it would "careless or inferior... but not irrational" to pitch a diamond from the dummy now. In the second place, even if we were to "allow" him to pitch a club instead (which is what he almost certainly would have done had he thought about it), it would be "careless or inferior... but not irrational" to test clubs before spades. If he were to do either of those, he would find himself unable to take the diamond finesse even if we were inclined to allow it. Of coure, we could probably construct a better example. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 04:11:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EHAZN26066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1EHARH26062 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:10:27 +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 JAA28541; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:01:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200202141701.JAA28541@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:16:38 +0100." <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:01:07 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hiya, > > A nice problem for those who > have been watching this interminable > thread on a basic claim principle. > Yesterday I was playing in a club > tournament when this little claim > happened: fortunately I was dummy. > > IMPs, no one vul > > AQJ10x > Jx > Axx > A10x > > xx > Qxx > QJx > KQxxx > > N S > 1S 1NT* > 2C** 2NT > 3NT pass > > 1NT = forcing > 2C = natural or any 5S332 > > West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > returned. West takes the king and returns > a third heart, declarer pitching > a diamond from dummy. South now takes > the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > that West follows declarer claims > stating "I have the rest". > > I firmly believe that someone > who claimed in this position should have a fair > trial and then be shot dead but > if that someone happens to be your partner > then you are obliged to treat this mental > aberration as "an innocent human weakness". > East - West contest the claim: East is the > proud possessor of 5 spades, West has > Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is > onside. > As for "the class of player involved" South > is a player of one of the top teams > in the Polish Second Division in contention > for the promotion to The First Division > (although seeing his performance on this deal you > might find it hard to believe). > > At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract > on the basis that South would discover > the bad breaks and then would fall back > on his only chance of the diamond > finesse. > > Was the TD right? No. The biggest problem is that declarer didn't play from dummy to trick 5 before claiming, and it doesn't seem irrational to pitch another diamond since he hasn't discovered the bad breaks yet. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 06:32:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EJVaK23000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:31:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EJVSH22975 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:31:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:22:10 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:39:06 -0600 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2002 19:22:10.0461 (UTC) FILETIME=[E62974D0:01C1B58C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was playing some low-level internet bridge late at night, and between swings of beer led to the last three tricks from dummy. I had a trump and two side suit cards. I believed all were good. One might suppose that after all of the recent discussion I (not irrrationally) kept the trump for last. No Way! (I quote my 2 year old granddaughter's favorite phrase.) The trump lost and I ended up making one trick less than I should have made. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 07:37:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EKaeQ02713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:36:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1EKaUH02683 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:36:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EKQDv06477; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:26:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:27:41 -0600 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:34 PM 2/13/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Set views of hawks will not change. Interest > > lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and > > usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. > >I think you will have to have a policy decision on what you want to >allow before you can decide on language. YES! Thanks! I am so happy that someone agrees. Whatever word or phrase is subsituted for 'irrational' will have a major potential impact on how we view claims. I think the committee should decide first how it wants claims handled, and the language can be fixed once that's done. [And I think that solving the problem through language is a bad idea, anyway. If the language is not clarified by examples and illustrations, then unless the language is _perfect_ this problem will re-arise. If we get clear examples and illustrations, then the current language is good enough for the purpose. But I've beaten this horse pretty hard before, and it still won't get up and run.] >The super-hawks will want to stick claimer with the worst legal line of >play. (Some even want to admit illegal lines.) This view has the advantage that it is easily stated--just substitute "legal" for "normal" in the body of the law, deleting the footnote, or else substitute "and even" for "but not" in the footnote for the really extreme view. :) >The hawks will (perhaps reluctantly) agree to "suits from top down, no >crashing honors," but they insist that suit order be whatever is worst >for claimer. This cannot be accomplished by a word change, I fear. Perhaps the footnote can be left as currently worded, and supplemented to read "...but not irrational plays as defined by [SO, NCBO, WBFLC, whatever]." This would imply that the only plays considered irrational have been defined explicitly. >Doves (I think) want to try to make some guess at what claimer probably >would have done if he had been forbidden to claim. Exactly. I would prefer something like "'Normal' includes careless or inferior plays that are fairly common for the class of player involved, but not those that are very unlikely." [Or 'grossly careless', if you prefer qualitative analysis to quantitative.] Actually, I think the footnote is fine as it stands, and what really needs to be re-written is L70A! If you specify that 'equity' means something like 'what would probably have occurred had the hand been played out [with benefit of the close calls to non-claimers]', and that the rest of L70 is meant simply to help clarify how difficult cases are to be dealt with, then _read in that context_ the footnote is fine. If you remove the reference to equity [the Burnian preference], then you need to re-write L70D to give a decision-rule. If you define equity some other way, then other changes might need to be made. But I argue that the hawkish and superhawkish positions do not produce equity, and hence violate this Law. But if L70A doesn't mean what I think it means, then my understanding of L70D is probably a bad one as well. >The rest of us are confused. Many of us just want a reasonably simple >algorithm to judge claims by. Ideally it should be easily explained Then you don't want L70A. I assert that it is impossible to design an algorithm, especially a simple one, that will produce equity. You can have equity or algorithms, but not both. >and understood but not so harsh on claimers as to prevent claims >entirely. (It occurs to me that something along the lines of L46B >might be one approach. L46B is arbitrary and no doubt sometimes >benefits the careless declarer, but at least it is fairly clear.) > >Are there any official pronouncements? In particular, has the meaning >of "as equitably as possible" been explained? Thank you, again. I think explaining 'normal' without explaining 'equitably' is...irrational. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 07:50:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EKoIt05014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:50:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EKo8H04987 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:50:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bSgS-0000cM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:40:49 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214144044.00b1aa10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:41:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <026401c1b567$b8a58a00$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214080425.00b1cef0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:55 AM 2/14/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > >It is not necessary, as Eric and others assert, to exhibit the >existence > > >of a rational but abnormal play in order to render the Tenerife >ruling > > >legitimate. > > > > Either I wasn't clear or David has misread me. What I asserted (or > > intended to) was the complement of the above: It is necessary to > > exhibit the existence of *irrational* but *normal* play to render the > > Tenerife ruling (as David explains it here) legitimate. > >I expect that I haad in mind these lines from a previous message: > > >Herman, with an assist from David Burn, has proven that stipulating the >frabjousness or non-frabjousness of each these four categories as above >does not logically preclude the existence of a fifth category: (e) >Plays which are not irrational, but which, by law, may nevertheless not >be frabjous. > > >If we accept all of the above, which I believe we all do, there remains >one question that we still must answer: Are there any plays in >category (e)? > >("frabjous" is the word I used as a substitute for the quoted "normal" >in the footnote, to distinguish it from the word 'normal' in its English >sense). > >This appeared to me then and appears to me still a request for the >demonstration of a rational but abnormal play. But of course, you and I >have written a great deal since then, and I apologise for not having >noticed that you would now like to concentrate on irrational but normal >plays. There is, of course, no such thing. But... Yes, I did write that, in the context that was current at the time. And I got several replies (some of them very good). That changed the context to one in which the existence of a rational but abnormal play was no longer an assumption to be defended in support of some conclusion, but rather the conclusion to be examined. In the latter context, I asserted that the conclusion (that there existed rational but abnormal plays) required two premises: (1) there exist irrational but normal plays, and (2) the dreaded footnote was intended to mean something other than "any play which is not abnormal must be considered normal". It is to this that David has replied, below. > > David suggests that admissibility be determined as follows: > > > > (1) Reject all abnormal plays. > > (2) Reject all irrational plays. > > (3) Accept all remaining plays. > > > > But if there is no such thing as a normal but irrational play, then >(2) > > disappears, leaving: > > > > (1) Reject all abnormal plays. > > (2) Accept all remaining plays. > > > > and the rule for admissibility becomes, "For the purposes of Laws 69, > > 70 and 71, 'normal' includes any play which, for the class of player > > involved, is not abnormal," > > > > which is an obviously trivial statement. > >Unfortunately, it isn't - because " 'normal' " is not the same word as >"normal", and is not necessarily the opposite of "abnormal". Some >'normal' plays, such as careless or inferior ones, are abnormal - just >because some people at The Wood play badly by my standards, they do not >play badly by their own, thus their normal play is not careless or >inferior for the class of player involved. That's why "frabjous" was >pressed into service; if the footnote were to say "frabjous includes any >play which..." then perhaps the position would be clearer. > >Since all irrational plays are abnormal, steps (1) and (2) of my >procedure can indeed be condensed - at some cost in clarity. I will make >one more assault on this problem, from a slightly different angle - and >then I hope I can have done with it for a while. Since the word "normal" >is the cause of all the trouble, I have removed it from the analysis >that follows. > >I have used the word "admissible" in the context of plays which may be >used as the basis for score adjustment when adjudicating a claim. The >Law uses the term "successful" when talking about an alternative line of >play proposed by a claimer. Perhaps a categorisation along these lines >may be helpful. Let us also use, with thanks to Grant Sterling for the >term, the word "typical" to denote that which a player would do, and >"atypical" to denote that which a player would in no circumstances do. > >The question is whether to admit an unsuccessful line of play, in place >of a successful one proposed by a claimer. > >An unsuccessful play may be admitted unless it is atypical or >irrational. The fact that it is careless or inferior does not render it >irrational, and has no bearing on whether or not it is typical. Thus, >careless or inferior lines may be admitted unless they are atypical *for >this individual in these circumstances*, regardless of whether or not >they are typical for some other individuals in other circumstances. > >I believe that the above is logically consistent with at least one >possible construction of the Law. I hope that what I have written >previously may be sufficient to exhibit this logical consistency, for I >am too weary to go through it all again. David has succeeded in convincing me that his position is logical, defensible, and consistent with the laws. But I still don't like it. Perhaps I am too good at coming up with nightmare scenarios, but I imagine this one: I am on a post-session AC. Before me sits a declarer, who is neurotically compulsive and has no life away from the bridge table. He has claimed without a statement. The TD was called. Declarer told the TD that he would have surely taken the winning play. The TD has ruled that there is an alternative line available that is careless or inferior, but not irrational, and that he will not accept declarer's belatedly stated line, citing L70D. The AC unanimously agrees with the TD (as anyone here would) that the alternative line of play is careless or inferior, but not irrational. Declarer tells the committee that for him, that play would be as atypical as any play could be. He has been in essentially the same situation 67 times in his life, and he took the line he wishes to be allowed on this hand 67 out of 67 times, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. He opens his briefcase and whips out notarized records of every hand of tournament bridge he has ever played. On examination, it turns out that his "67 out of 67" claim is indisputably true. I will happily rule with the TD, explaining to the appellant that despite the fact that he never had and never would take such a play, it is nevertheless not irrational to do so. I will cite L70D and the footnote. Case closed. David will be forced to rule for the appellant. Now comes the next appeal. This appellant is mentally balanced, and has a real life. He has also claimed as declarer without a statement on the very same hand, in the very same position, and the TD has made the same ruling. He makes exactly the same claim, 67 out of 67 etc., but, being psychologically normal, can offer no proof to back up his statement. I will make the same ruling as before, and offer the same explanation. David will have two choices: (1) He can rule for this appellant as well. But he is a recognized authority, and if he does, this will be taken as a precedent which says that when a declarer tells an AC that under no circumstances would he ever take such a play, the AC shall accept such a statement at face value. (2) He can rule with the TD, on the grounds that the second player's statement lacks the credibiltiy of the first's. Now we sophisticates on this list understand the subtle distinction between "your statement lacks credibility" and "you are lying", but I can guarantee with 100% certainty that this player is not going to appreciate this subtle distinction, and will believe he was ruled against because the committee thought he was lying, as will the vast majority of the ordinary players, not steeped in BLML lore, who read or hear about these two cases. Tim will (in my nightmare) find himself in an even worse dilemma. Tim will rule for the first appellant. And he will rule for the second as well, because the second appellant is known to him, and he knows with absolute certainty that this person "would state with 100% truthfulness if they had, in fact, missed the [winning line]". He will, of course, then face a third case which is absolutely identical to the second one, except that this time the appellant is a stranger. He would like to rule with the TD, since neither of the bases on which he decided oppositely in the first two cases are present this time. But if he does so, he will stand accused -- and rightfully so! -- of ruling in favor of his friends but against strangers under identical circumstances. While I drift into happier dreams, mumbling in my sleep something that sounds a lot like "not irrational, case closed". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 08:02:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EL22s07291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:02:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EL1rH07274 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:01:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bSrr-0002Wz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:52:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214154922.00b29b30@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:53:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <3C6BD3DB.1010107@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM 2/14/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>The ACBL has made a pronouncement that takes the position of the >>"hawks", at least on the question of top-down (AFAIK, they have not >>pronounced on crashing honors, but probably because they do not view >>it as controversial). I do believe that that they have explicity >>pronounced in favor of "suit order be whatever is worst", at least >>for certain types of positions, but I'm not 100% certain of that. >I don't think top-down is hawkish, quite the reverse. Many of the >lines that I see the hawks advocating are quite worse than that. >Suit order be whatever is worst seems also quite straightforward to >me, and I don't want you to think that, being a dove, I would discuss that. Please take a second look at Steve's post to which I was replying. In it, he made a useful distinction among what he calls "doves", "hawks" and "super-hawks", and I adopted his terminology in reply. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 08:17:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ELHcc10021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:17:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ELHTH10000 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:17:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bT6x-0005Cw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:08:11 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214155949.00b19630@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:08:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214173012.00a72440@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:30 AM 2/14/02, Alain wrote: >At 09:53 14/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>>In particular, has the meaning >>>of "as equitably as possible" been explained? >> >>Not in the ACBL. They have justified their "hawkish" position as an >>interpretation of "irrationality", without addressing "equity". > >AG : isn't this in contradiction with the first lines of TFLB ? I don't see it that way. Those lines tell us that the laws were designed primarily to achieve equity (although they don't use the word), but it is the laws themselves that tell us how to go about reaching that goal. We may disagree about the interpretation of individual laws, but it is individual laws that we must interpret. Nothing in those lines gives us leave to ignore any individual law in the name of some higher goal of "equity". We would like to reach equity, but it is the laws themselves that mandate the direction in which we must march to get there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 09:05:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EM4t317607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:04:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EM4kH17594 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:04:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA29329 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA20186 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:55:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:55:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Now you rule against me again, because you make me > take a play which I can prove is abnormal for me." You have shifted the discussion. I thought we were all ruling for this claimer (Tim's beginner, who has never seen a squeeze or a holdup play by the defense). If he can "prove," or even convince us by preponderance of the evidence, that a certain line is abnormal for him, then Herman and I and the EBLAC are ruling that line to be inadmissible for him. As to your nightmare scenario in the later message, the reason we are ruling _for_ Tim's declarer is that he is not good enough to see the squeeze line. We are ruling against declarers who are better players. I agree that this will be hard to explain, which is why I personally would prefer an algorithmic approach to ruling claims. However, I don't want an algorithmic approach that is so severe as to discourage all claiming. > From: Israel Erdnbaum > One is not harsh on claimers - only on faulty claimers ,and with good > reason, many times they get away with it .So if you claim make a > statement,and if you make no statement that should mean only one thing that > the tricks are yours however you play them. The above is certainly algorithmic, but adopting it would take a massive education project. We have to publicize that "It is really bad to claim without a statement, and if you do it, we'll try to punish you." Maybe it would have made for a better game if that approach had been in effect all along, but we are now very far down a different track. Is it possible to go back? Is it desirable? I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: 1. Something fairly hawkish, as Israel suggests. 2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case by case basis. 3. Something algorithmic but not so hawkish as 1. I know we have quite a few votes for 1; mine is for 3 (probably a minority of one, as usual). I think I sense a few for 2. Of course the only votes that count are those of the LC members, and they will no doubt want to cast theirs in private discussion. I do hope they will tell us the result. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 09:31:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EMVhP20788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:31:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EMVZH20767 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:31:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bUGe-0002Cy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:22:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:22:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:27 PM 2/14/02, Grant wrote: >At 05:34 PM 2/13/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >>Doves (I think) want to try to make some guess at what claimer probably >>would have done if he had been forbidden to claim. > > Exactly. I would prefer something like "'Normal' includes >careless or inferior plays that are fairly common for the class of >player involved, but not those that are very unlikely." [Or >'grossly careless', if you prefer qualitative analysis to >quantitative.] Actually, I think the footnote is fine as it >stands, and what really needs to be re-written is L70A! If you >specify that 'equity' means something like 'what would probably >have occurred had the hand been played out [with benefit of the >close calls to non-claimers]', and that the rest of L70 is meant simply >to help clarify how difficult cases are to be dealt with, then >_read in that context_ the footnote is fine. If you remove the >reference to equity [the Burnian preference], then you need to >re-write L70D to give a decision-rule. If you define equity >some other way, then other changes might need to be made. But >I argue that the hawkish and superhawkish positions do not >produce equity, and hence violate this Law. But if L70A doesn't >mean what I think it means, then my understanding of L70D is >probably a bad one as well. > >>The rest of us are confused. Many of us just want a reasonably simple >>algorithm to judge claims by. Ideally it should be easily explained > > Then you don't want L70A. I assert that it is impossible >to design an algorithm, especially a simple one, that will >produce equity. You can have equity or algorithms, but not >both. If we choose to have equity, our appeals committee rulings will be self-justifying ("equity is what we say it is"). No two committees will see equity quite the same way, and will be able to use their different views of equity to give, and justify, different rulings in similar situations. If, OTOH, we choose to have algorithms, we may find ourselves unable to achieve perfect equity, but at least we will be making consistent rulings, and have an objective basis on which to justify them. The problem with choosing algorithms is that we will never be able to write enough algorithms to cover every possible case. We will still need L70A so we can have something, even if it's only the vague and subjective goal of equity, for the cases that our algorithms don't cover. That, as I read L70, is where we are now: L70B-E give us algorithms, and L70A requires us to do our best to achieve equity when those algorithms fail us. Our choice is between attempting to improve and expand the algorithms we already have, or to do away with them in favor of making all rulings subjective and self-justifying. I favor the former, but reasonable people may (and undoubtedly will) disagree. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 15 09:55:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EMtSo24068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1EMtIH24033 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from a03-119.antw.online.be ([62.112.4.119] helo=norbertf) by carno.brus.online.be with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16bUda-0005ZM-00; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:45:58 +0100 From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:40:58 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy > Date: donderdag 14 februari 2002 18:01 > > > > Hiya, > > > > A nice problem for those who > > have been watching this interminable > > thread on a basic claim principle. > > Yesterday I was playing in a club > > tournament when this little claim > > happened: fortunately I was dummy. > > > > IMPs, no one vul > > > > AQJ10x > > Jx > > Axx > > A10x > > > > xx > > Qxx > > QJx > > KQxxx > > > > N S > > 1S 1NT* > > 2C** 2NT > > 3NT pass > > > > 1NT = forcing > > 2C = natural or any 5S332 > > > > West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > > returned. West takes the king and returns > > a third heart, declarer pitching > > a diamond from dummy. South now takes > > the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > > cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > > that West follows declarer claims > > stating "I have the rest". > > > > I firmly believe that someone > > who claimed in this position should have a fair > > trial and then be shot dead but > > if that someone happens to be your partner > > then you are obliged to treat this mental > > aberration as "an innocent human weakness". > > East - West contest the claim: East is the > > proud possessor of 5 spades, West has > > Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is > > onside. > > As for "the class of player involved" South > > is a player of one of the top teams > > in the Polish Second Division in contention > > for the promotion to The First Division > > (although seeing his performance on this deal you > > might find it hard to believe). > > > > At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract > > on the basis that South would discover > > the bad breaks and then would fall back > > on his only chance of the diamond > > finesse. > > > > Was the TD right? > > No. The biggest problem is that declarer didn't play from dummy to > trick 5 before claiming, and it doesn't seem irrational to pitch > another diamond since he hasn't discovered the bad breaks yet. > > -- Adam Indeed. But as L68 says ".. it( claim statement) must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress.." I should like to know which law one goes apply for playing that non-played card? Surely it can not be comprehended in the claim, so nothing about normal, irrational... but what ? L68c allready asks "at once" for the line of play and there's still a card to much in dummy; claimer has definitely put himself in a position where he forces himself to violate correct procedure. Norbert -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 10:04:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1EN4E925359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:04:14 +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 g1EN45H25337 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:04:06 +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 OAA31847; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:54:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200202142254.OAA31847@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:40:58 +0100." Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:54:45 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Norbert wrote: > Indeed. But as L68 says ".. it( claim statement) must refer to tricks other > than one currently in progress.." I should like to know which law one goes > apply for playing that non-played card? This one has been discussed several times. This clause in L68 simply means that if you say something like "I'm going to win this trick", it does not constitute a claim. If you say anything about other tricks, then it's a claim; and the rules for adjudicating claims apply to *all* cards that haven't yet been played, including cards not yet played to the trick currently in progress. I don't understand why this misinterpretation pops up so frequently. I don't think the language involved is vague, if it's read carefully. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 10:52:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ENq3W01807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:52:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ENpsH01786 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:51:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0234.bb.online.no [80.212.208.234]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA14881; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:42:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004001c1b5b1$3f55a1e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Norbert Fornoville" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Adam Beneschan" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:42:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy > > Date: donderdag 14 februari 2002 18:01 > > .....(snip) > > > IMPs, no one vul > > > > > > AQJ10x > > > Jx > > > Axx > > > A10x > > > > > > xx > > > Qxx > > > QJx > > > KQxxx > > > > > > N S > > > 1S 1NT* > > > 2C** 2NT > > > 3NT pass > > > > > > 1NT = forcing > > > 2C = natural or any 5S332 > > > > > > West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > > > returned. West takes the king and returns > > > a third heart, declarer pitching > > > a diamond from dummy. South now takes > > > the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > > > cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > > > that West follows declarer claims > > > stating "I have the rest". .....(snip) > > > At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract > > > on the basis that South would discover > > > the bad breaks and then would fall back > > > on his only chance of the diamond > > > finesse. > > > > > > Was the TD right? > > > > No. The biggest problem is that declarer didn't play from dummy to > > trick 5 before claiming, and it doesn't seem irrational to pitch > > another diamond since he hasn't discovered the bad breaks yet. > > > > -- Adam > > Indeed. But as L68 says ".. it( claim statement) must refer to tricks other > than one currently in progress.." I should like to know which law one goes > apply for playing that non-played card? Surely it can not be comprehended > in the claim, so nothing about normal, irrational... but what ? L68c > allready asks "at once" for the line of play and there's still a card to > much in dummy; claimer has definitely put himself in a position where he > forces himself to violate correct procedure. > > Norbert > Not only that, but he is practically squeezing dummy, and incidently: What shall he discard from his own hand? If he believes that one of the black suit breaks the only rational play is to discard diamonds from both hands. I tried to figure out the various possibilities, but found no "rational" line leading up to a position with DAx in dummy against DQJ with declarer and declarer on the lead for a final cut in Diamonds. Down one. 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 Feb 15 11:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F0Bbt04316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F0BLH04284 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.72.81] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16bVp9-0006Ng-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:01:59 +0000 Message-ID: <006e01c1b5b4$636ccce0$5148e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robert E. Harris" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:59:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? > > No Way! (I quote my 2 year old granddaughter's > favorite phrase.) The trump lost and I ended up > making one trick less than I should have made. > +=+ You do realize just how abnormal you are? :-) And not to claim was irrational ! But let me quote a distinguished authority: (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." ~ 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 Feb 15 11:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F0BVc04307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:31 +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 g1F0BGH04260 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.72.81] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16bVp3-0006Ng-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:01:53 +0000 Message-ID: <006b01c1b5b4$5fe3f440$5148e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:21:35 -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, February 14, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief > At 05:34 PM 2/13/02, Steve wrote: > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Set views of hawks will not change. Interest > > > lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and > > > usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. > > > >I think you will have to have a policy decision on > > what you want to allow before you can decide on > > language. > > +=+ Well, yes and no..... the proven method of concentrating the minds of colleagues is to put up a coconut and let them shy at it, or walk round it. Language can then be adapted from one's initial proposition to the resultant compromise, whatever it may be. I believe very much in initiative - not that for one second I expect to get my way in all things, or all my way in anything; but miracles do happen and when we have a decision, whatever, my duty is to find expression for it. This I do willingly - and only rarely also with disbelief! ~ 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 Feb 15 11:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F0BaF04314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g1F0BKH04279 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.72.81] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16bVp7-0006Ng-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: <006d01c1b5b4$622de440$5148e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grant Sterling" , "Steve Willner" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:55:59 -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: "Steve Willner" Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief > But I've beaten this horse pretty hard before, > and it still won't get up and run. > +=+ Did you stop to think maybe its a camel ? There are limits to the value of illustrations; each exemplifies a particular point - where the law expresses a comprehensive principle the number of illustrations required is 'n'. But there is a place for examples - the WBF President has asked us to back the Code of Practice with 'jurisprudence' to target the need. When the Salt Lake City contingent surfaces again we will try to get the first instalment of 'jurisprudence' on the road. ~ 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 Feb 15 11:55:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F0sc412106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F0sQH12067 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:54:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1E10io11996 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:00:44 GMT Message-ID: <2xFmScBtmFb8EwFd@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:43:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200202142155.QAA20186@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 <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: >1. Something fairly hawkish, as Israel suggests. >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > by case basis. >3. Something algorithmic but not so hawkish as 1. > >I know we have quite a few votes for 1; mine is for 3 (probably a >minority of one, as usual). I think I sense a few for 2. Of course >the only votes that count are those of the LC members, and they will >no doubt want to cast theirs in private discussion. I do hope they >will tell us the result. > of these I'm fairly hawkish. Can we poll AKTxx facing Q9xx? I'm curious. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 15 11:56:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F0uaR12451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:56:36 +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 g1F0uQH12425 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:56:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1E12jo12000 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:02:45 GMT Message-ID: <0hvm2qBEpFb8EwlL@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:45:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) References: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@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 <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >John wrote: > >> regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first or last, >it >> is certainly careless or inferior to play trump first. 3 tricks. >> >> I have watched the whole Tenerife thread with mounting incredulity. > >But not with much attention, by the look of things. A director must >consider, as alternatives to a proposed new linne of play, only normal >lines (L70D). Thus, even though it may be both careless and inferior to >play trumps first, if it is not normal to play trumps first, then a line >based on playing trumps first must not be admitted. The words >"regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first" amount to >a dereliction of duty (as well as a woeful syntactical desuetude). > >> It >> is fundamental that a claim which is flawed costs the claimer unless >the >> action proposed is totally and utterly surreal - irrational - if you >> will. > >I know of no such principle, nor can I find one embodied in or implied >by the Laws. then your interpretation, and mine, are entirely at variance. ... and I have been following the thread closely and in complete incredulity. > >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 Fri Feb 15 12:06:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F16fW14235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:06:41 +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 g1F16VH14207 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1E1Cno12006 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:12:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:55:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy References: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >Hiya, > > A nice problem for those who >have been watching this interminable >thread on a basic claim principle. >Yesterday I was playing in a club >tournament when this little claim >happened: fortunately I was dummy. > >IMPs, no one vul > >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >N S >1S 1NT* >2C** 2NT >3NT pass > >1NT = forcing >2C = natural or any 5S332 > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". > I wouldn't have given them to him. Hawk-ish position. snip >At the table the TD gave the poor man his contract >on the basis that South would discover >the bad breaks and then would fall back >on his only chance of the diamond >finesse. > >Was the TD right? > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Olimpiada Salt Lake City 2002 >>> http://olimpiada2002.interia.pl/ >>>> Aktualnosci >>> Terminarz >>> Areny >>> Galerie >>> Kadra... > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 15 13:26:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F2PCD28589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:25:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F2P2H28570 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:25:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from kdr600 (i-airlock113.esatclear.ie [194.165.162.113]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA19353 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:15:37 GMT From: "Karel" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:23:57 -0000 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) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214134912.00a6d450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk South's claim is "I have the rest". He has not stated any line of play. I believe in such situations that the defenders can "force" declarer to play the hand in ANY way which isn't "irrational". South appears to be basing his claim on 5 club tricks or 5 spade tricks. To maximise both these options (singleton CJ comming down or the 5th spade comming home) - he is highly unlikely to discard a club or a spade. He will and I believe can be forced to discard a diamond which seems quite normal. At this stage he can't make -1. The TD in effect forced south to discard a club from dummy and then allowed him to test the spades 1st and then the clubs 1st before finally falling back on the diamond finesse. This is a very specific line of play, and I don't think should be allowed. Regardless of possible squeeze chances or the level of the player involved this hand has many pitfalls and if declarer was that good a player he should have realised that these could occur and only claim when he was 200% sure. Certainly if we are going to rule against the "blatantly obvious" case I posted previously then this case doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why are we even suggesting possible squeezes or lines of play which could work when the forced diamond discard which is perfectly normal as per law is -1 ?? I would have thought this a text book case of a misclaim. On the other thread I posted. Quick recap. Rho has a trump and red suit winner. Declarer has Master trump, trump loser and outside winner. Before Rho can lead declarer claims the rest. Declarer has previously finessed Rho in trumps. Some awarded declarer 3 tricks and some 2. Now while the above 3NT claim has so much going against declarer in my case declarer finessed Rho previously in trumps. The 2 tricks for declarer people claimed "yeh sure he finessed him - but he's forgotten now ...". Come on guys - he's suddenly gone from competent to amnesiac in 10 seconds. Even then - He's down to 2 cards after ruffing the red suit return from RHO, a master trump and a side winner. How can we rule pedantically and say he is going to play his side suit winner before his master trump when the evidence is so strong that declarer did not forget about the outstanding trump from his previous play. That aside, you have the trump K and a side winner, which order are you going to play them in ?? Even my beginners class would get that one. David's "well next time he'll claim properly" while as per law I can't fault him - common sense and proven awareness of card placement by declarer must count for something. I posted the thread because what actually happened was - the TD got the rule book read the relevant passage and ruled 1 more trick for the opps. Now while his ruling is technically correct, I felt he was wrong in this case as the evidence to date and common sense should have prevailed. If I had been asked to rule I would have ruled 3 tricks for declarer. I would have asked him to in future state his line even when he felt it was blatantly obvious as a curtesy to the opps. To wrap him on the knuckles for a claim which ineffect complimented the opps bridge ability is in my opinion an abuse of that particular law. As a well recognised TD once told me - the laws are not meant to be written in stone but are meant as a "template" to help Td's rule. >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >N S >1S 1NT* >2C** 2NT >3NT pass > >1NT = forcing >2C = natural or any 5S332 > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". > >East - West contest the claim: East is the >proud possessor of 5 spades, West has >Jxxx in clubs but the diamond king is >onside. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 13:46:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F2k1k01890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:46:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F2jpH01858 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:45:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from kdr600 (i-airlock113.esatclear.ie [194.165.162.113]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA22324 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:36:27 GMT From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:44:47 -0000 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) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214082458.00b1f120@pop.starpower.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As most of you guys quote law numbers and sub paragraphs etc, I've bought an up to date (I hope) law book and now read the appropriate law under discussion. Law 25B seems pretty amazing It seems to say that a player can change his bid so long as his pd has not bid. If he changes his original bid his pd can't bid for the rest of the auction and there may be lead penalties should your side defend. Now in the case in question you pass a cue bid LHO passes and now you say whowww I want to change my call. You bid game or slam as pd is forced to pass - there is no lead penalty as pd is declaring and you're happy .... I'm sure I must have got this wrong ... Karel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 18:46:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F7jSw21440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:45:29 +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-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 g1F7jJH21423 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:45:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.29.7] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16bcpo-000FTg-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:31:08 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c1b5f3$cea9cf00$071de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:55:59 -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: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > Now, this is extremely important, because it is not how a great > many people think to apply the Law. You and John Probst and > others have indicated a belief that the Law regards all careless > or inferior plays as "normal". That belief is understandable, and > is supported by one possible construction of the footnote. But > it is not the only construction, and Grattan's words above > (together with the judgement of the Tenerife committee) > indicate that the Law regards only some careless or inferior > plays as normal. > +=+ An indication further supported by the top-down directive and by the authority I have just quoted in reply to R E Harris ~ 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 Feb 15 19:22:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F8MBv27864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:22:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F8M1H27841 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:22:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0949.bb.online.no [80.212.211.181]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA03199; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:12:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Karel" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:11:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Karel" > As most of you guys quote law numbers and sub paragraphs etc, I've bought an > up to date (I hope) law book and now read the appropriate law under > discussion. > > Law 25B seems pretty amazing > > > It seems to say that a player can change his bid so long as his pd has not > bid. If he changes his original bid his pd can't bid for the rest of the > auction and there may be lead penalties should your side defend. Now in the > case in question you pass a cue bid LHO passes and now you say whowww I want > to change my call. You bid game or slam as pd is forced to pass - there is > no lead penalty as pd is declaring and you're happy .... I'm sure I must > have got this wrong ... Yes - it is amazing, and I hope this particular law will disappear again with the next revision. But you have, I believe, overlooked the reference to Law23 from Law25B2b1. (Damaging enforced pass) Quite important law that is. 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 Feb 15 19:37:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F8bVD00466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:37:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F8bLH00447 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:37:22 +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 g1F8Rvc01498 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:28:01 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 15 09:24:41 2002 +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 <01KEAQULP5VC000J1E@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:27:27 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <16W0JRWZ>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:27:13 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:27:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) To: "'Peter Gill'" , BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Spades are trumps. > >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump > >and 2 winning Diamonds. > >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > > > >The defenders have a master trump. > >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. > >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > > > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. > >Correct? > > Correct IMO. hello all of you, agreeing isn't it? That is too good to be true. Years ago this situation was brought up in an article and the approach was that the answer isn't clear and depends on the trump holding. If this declarer has the deuce of trumps and his top diamonds he will not play his trump but his diamonds, kind of natural protection. But if it is a high trunmp he might, so therefore the answer depends, the better the holding the more tricks you loose. No need to say that I agree with this idea. Don't ask me what the decision is with the trump 9. I hear David B. grumbling. 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 Feb 15 19:53:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F8rA403248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:53:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F8r0H03210 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:53:01 +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 g1F8hdc05780 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:40 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 15 09:40:22 2002 +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 <01KEAREBWK0Y000J22@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:21 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <16W0JS0M>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:19 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I just sent my opinion in a previous answer and honestly I hadn't read this one then. Good to have mentioned David anyway. I disagree with David, and he probably will disagree with himself after some thinking. Give me a 'normal' line of play in which declarer holds the 3 of trumps and a defender the 2 with 2 cards left. Avoiding a throw-in defending 7 spades? And David still playing in stead of having claimed? Risking 2 off iso 1? The description is just ridiculous. If you, David, needs this one to support your case we can be relieved: we even might be right. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 13 februari 2002 16:41 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > Tim wrote: > > > If I knew the 6 was the last trump, of course I might. > > > But if I held 2,AKQ I would regard playing the 2 first as terminally > > stupid beyond the point of carelessness. If I held A,AKQ I would > regard > > playing anything but the trump ace as terminally stupid. > Indeed make > that > > 4,AKQ and Q,AKQ and I still regard the cases as stupidity indicators > (the > > 4 is so unlikely to be top and the queen so likely to be > that I regard > the > > "precautionary" order as blindingly obvious). Make the > trump 8,9 or T > and > > you will be hard pressed to persuade me that precaution A > is any more > > normal than precaution B in a disputed claim case. > > "Finish this hand for me", says South, "I have to make an urgent phone > call", and rushes out of the room. > > "What's the contract?" you enquire, seeing eleven tricks stacked in > front of you. > > "Seven Spades", says West, "and it's your lead". You look at your two > remaining cards, which are S3 and HA. How do you play? > > Of course, your only rational course of action is to play the three of > spades. This cannot cost the contract, and gains if an > opponent has the > singleton two. Playing HA to trick 12 is irrational, for it can never > gain. > > Even if one were to attempt to modify the Tenerife Precedent > by saying: > > There are some positions in which trumps-first is normal and some in > which it is not, these positions being contingent upon the rank of the > remaining trump(s) and other cards in the hand > > one would run into difficulties of the kind encountered above. Tim has > attempted such a modification, saying that he would never "normally" > play any trump below the five before any certain side winner - but, as > shown above, it is a trivial matter to construct an exception to this > modification. I have deliberately created an artificial situation in > order to show more clearly the rationality of "trumps first" - but if > the original South had remained at the table, and was in any way > uncertain about the spade suit, his only rational play would be the > spade and not the heart. It might be worth mentioning for > Eric's benefit > that people do not "normally" play that way. > > The problem I have is this: if one accepts the Tenerife Precedent, one > says in effect: in order to admit a line of play, you must > first decide > whether it is normal, where "normal" is undefined. Now, an expert > appeals committee may be in a position to say authoritatively that > such-and-such a line is not "normal" for a declarer known to be of the > highest class. But average TDs and ACs the world over are not going to > be in such a position. "What does "normal" mean?" they will want to > know. "Well", Herman will say, "it means that which is not > never-done." > "Where", they will ask, "can one get a decent game of > tiddlywinks? This > bridge is a truly hopeless business." > > 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 Feb 15 20:55:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1F9tF514516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:55:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1F9t7H14496 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:55:07 +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 g1F9jkc24261 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:45:47 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 15 10:42:28 2002 +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 <01KEATK1HI7K000J4V@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:45:13 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <16W0JYBG>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:45:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:45:12 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B To: "'Karel'" , 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 > > As most of you guys quote law numbers and sub paragraphs etc, > I've bought an > up to date (I hope) law book and now read the appropriate law under > discussion. > > Law 25B seems pretty amazing > > > It seems to say that a player can change his bid so long as > his pd has not > bid. If he changes his original bid his pd can't bid for the > rest of the > auction and there may be lead penalties should your side > defend. Now in the > case in question you pass a cue bid LHO passes and now you > say whowww I want > to change my call. You bid game or slam as pd is forced to > pass - there is > no lead penalty as pd is declaring and you're happy .... I'm > sure I must > have got this wrong ... > > Karel You have, try again and be sure you have the '97 laws. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 21:20:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FAJxV17724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:19:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FAJnH17697 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:19:50 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1ZGVP0KS>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:53:19 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E62F@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:53:09 +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: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 3:45 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B > > > As most of you guys quote law numbers and sub paragraphs etc, > I've bought an > up to date (I hope) law book and now read the appropriate law under > discussion. > > Law 25B seems pretty amazing > > > It seems to say that a player can change his bid so long as > his pd has not > bid. If he changes his original bid his pd can't bid for the > rest of the > auction and there may be lead penalties should your side > defend. Now in the > case in question you pass a cue bid LHO passes and now you > say whowww I want > to change my call. You bid game or slam as pd is forced to > pass - there is > no lead penalty as pd is declaring and you're happy .... I'm > sure I must > have got this wrong ... > That is not what 25B says. Until LHO (not partner) calls, a player may attempt to change his bid. If LHO accepts the change, auction continues. If not, then he may stick to his original bid (and partner must pass once), or he may substitute another call, after which the auction continues normally (no forced passes!), but offenders cannot score more than A- (opponents keep their score). L16 (UI) and L26 (lead penalties) may apply. So in your example, you are too late - LHO already passed. If you now try to call, it is a call out of rotation (while it is partner's turn). And finally, the trick of committing an infraction, forcing partner to pass, after which you bid game or slam is dealt with in L23: if the offender could have known that the forced pass would be likely to damage the opponents, TD will adjust. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 15 22:44:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FBi0c03386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:44:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FBhoH03358 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.221]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1FBYSc22712 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:34:28 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6CF25B.8090406@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:34:51 +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] Re: Barton's relief References: <200202132234.RAA14002@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 At Eric's insistence, I did take a second look at this post, and I must say that I donn't agree. Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>Set views of hawks will not change. Interest >>lies elsewhere. Mine has switched to language and >>usage; into what could substitute 'irrational'. >> > > I think you will have to have a policy decision on what you want to > allow before you can decide on language. > > The super-hawks will want to stick claimer with the worst legal line of > play. (Some even want to admit illegal lines.) > It is not a good thing to be a super-hawk. > The hawks will (perhaps reluctantly) agree to "suits from top down, no > crashing honors," but they insist that suit order be whatever is worst > for claimer. > That is not hawkish, that is normal, both hawk and dove. There are (I think Eric and I are both in this category) two variants of this. Those that play trumps last and those that don't. > Doves (I think) want to try to make some guess at what claimer probably > would have done if he had been forbidden to claim. > No, that's super-doves. I do not advocate having declarer guess right between spades and hearts - only about trumps and non-trumps. > The rest of us are confused. Many of us just want a reasonably simple > algorithm to judge claims by. Ideally it should be easily explained > and understood but not so harsh on claimers as to prevent claims > entirely. (It occurs to me that something along the lines of L46B > might be one approach. L46B is arbitrary and no doubt sometimes > benefits the careless declarer, but at least it is fairly clear.) > > Are there any official pronouncements? In particular, has the meaning > of "as equitably as possible" been explained? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 16 01:11:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FEB2c28163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:11:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FEAqH28146 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:10:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bivc-0002JX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:01:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215082718.00b26a00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:02:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <200202142155.QAA20186@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 04:55 PM 2/14/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > Now you rule against me again, because you make me > > take a play which I can prove is abnormal for me." > >You have shifted the discussion. I thought we were all ruling for this >claimer (Tim's beginner, who has never seen a squeeze or a holdup play >by the defense). If he can "prove," or even convince us by >preponderance of the evidence, that a certain line is abnormal for him, >then Herman and I and the EBLAC are ruling that line to be inadmissible >for him. > >As to your nightmare scenario in the later message, the reason we are >ruling _for_ Tim's declarer is that he is not good enough to see the >squeeze line. We are ruling against declarers who are better players. >I agree that this will be hard to explain, which is why I personally >would prefer an algorithmic approach to ruling claims. However, I >don't want an algorithmic approach that is so severe as to discourage >all claiming. The quoted remarks come from a post addressing the issue generically, which was not intended to have anything particular to do with Tim's novice-declarer example. I have discussed that example, and said that I would rule for Tim's novice, on grounds that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and will, incidentally, be a lot easier to explain. > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > One is not harsh on claimers - only on faulty claimers ,and with good > > reason, many times they get away with it .So if you claim make a > > statement,and if you make no statement that should mean only one > thing that > > the tricks are yours however you play them. > >The above is certainly algorithmic, but adopting it would take a >massive education project. We have to publicize that "It is really bad >to claim without a statement, and if you do it, we'll try to punish >you." Maybe it would have made for a better game if that approach had >been in effect all along, but we are now very far down a different >track. Is it possible to go back? Is it desirable? I don't think it's possible. I don't find it desirable, because I, like many others here, would prefer to have laws that encourage claims rather than discourage them. But Steve is right when he suggests that I might feel differently if that were the way the game had been played from the start. >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: >1. Something fairly hawkish, as Israel suggests. >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > by case basis. >3. Something algorithmic but not so hawkish as 1. > >I know we have quite a few votes for 1; mine is for 3 (probably a >minority of one, as usual). I think I sense a few for 2. Of course >the only votes that count are those of the LC members, and they will >no doubt want to cast theirs in private discussion. I do hope they >will tell us the result. Sorry, Steve, you're not alone, you're stuck with me firmly in your camp; I hope this doesn't harm your cause! My only reservation is that we must recognize reality, which is that "something algorithmic" will never cover every conceivable case, and we will always need something like "equity" in reserve for those cases not covered by our algorithms. I submit that that's where we are now; my opinion is that it would be most productive for us to concentrate on improving and adding to our algorithmic rules in ways that are consensually reasonable, gradually shifting the relative frequency of algorithm-based rulings and equity-based rulings in favor of the former. Because the reality on the ground under fire is that when one of our players is "subjected" to a ruling by a TD or AC, it isn't all that important to them whether they perceive the ruling to have been forgiving, equitable or Draconian. What really matters to them is that they perceive that they got the same ruling that the last person in their situation got and that the next person in their situation will get. "Equity" is like "normal". There's "bridge-equity" and there's "dictionary-equity"; they're two different things. "Bridge-equity" is based on the notion of "what would have happened", had the hand been played out, had the infraction not occurred, whatever. "Dictionary-equity" is based on the concept of "blind justice", which means making rulings that don't depend on who's on the receiving end. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 01:28:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FES0p00183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:28:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FERpH00157 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:27:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bjC4-0005Fy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:18:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215091350.00b263b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:19:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <2xFmScBtmFb8EwFd@asimere.com> References: <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200202142155.QAA20186@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 07:43 PM 2/14/02, John wrote: >of these I'm fairly hawkish. Can we poll AKTxx facing Q9xx? I'm curious. Didn't we do this not all that long ago, and discover that we did not have a general consensus? OK, I'll vote again: Queen first is careless, inferior, not irrational, and admissible for any "class of player". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 01:36:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FEaWh01812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:36:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FEaNH01780 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:36:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bjKJ-0006tU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:27:03 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215092408.00b1c220@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:27:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <009001c1b5e4$50737780$5f5f003e@erdnbaum> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214080425.00b1cef0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214144044.00b1aa10@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:47 AM 2/15/02, Israel wrote: >Would you not sleep better if neither normal >-careless inferior or irrational had any bearing on the result >of a >claim? and they should NOT. No; it is not I who has trouble sleeping under the law as written. The problem I have with the Burn "super-hawk" approach is that I will get a lot less sleep than I do now, because no one will ever claim, and sessions of bridge that now end at 11:00 PM will last until midnight. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 01:50:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FEoQB04239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:50:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FEoIH04215 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:50:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bjXm-0001vf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:40:58 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215093117.00b27eb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:41:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <001401c1b5f3$cea9cf00$071de150@dodona> References: <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@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 07:55 PM 2/14/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" > > > Now, this is extremely important, because it is not how a great > > many people think to apply the Law. You and John Probst and > > others have indicated a belief that the Law regards all careless > > or inferior plays as "normal". That belief is understandable, and > > is supported by one possible construction of the footnote. But > > it is not the only construction, and Grattan's words above > > (together with the judgement of the Tenerife committee) > > indicate that the Law regards only some careless or inferior > > plays as normal. Nobody doubts this. We all indisputably agree that careless or inferior plays that are irrational must not be regarded as normal. The debate is over whether there are plays that are both careless or inferior and rational which must be regarded as normal. >+=+ An indication further supported by the top-down > directive and by the authority I have just quoted > in reply to R E Harris ~ G ~ +=+ The only "top-down directive" I'm aware of is the ACBL's, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the question at hand. Once more: The ACBL has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that playing suits other than from the top down is IRRATIONAL. They have NOT decided that is rational but inadmissible because it is "abnormal", "untypical", "never-done", or for any other reason other than that it is IRRATIONAL. We cannot argue that, just because we disagree with the ACBL (FWIW, I personally do not) and believe it to be rational, that this in any way suggests that the ACBL believes that there are rational plays which are inadmissible. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 01:59:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FEwtD05727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:58:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FEwkH05701 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:58:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bjfy-0003qx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:49:26 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215094736.00b218a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:50:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214201541.00a75ec0@mail.fscv.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214082458.00b1f120@pop.starpower.net> <4W+UniDS6la8EwPw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21BE@al21.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:18 PM 2/14/02, Walt wrote: | Was this [L25B] added or changed in the '97 Laws? It was added in 1987, which was the last round of changes prior to 1997's. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 02:47:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FFkwR13952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:46:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FFkhH13913 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:46:43 +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 PAA22183 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:37:17 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:37:25 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 15.02.2002 15:37:16, Serialize complete at 15.02.2002 15:37:16 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 g1FFkpH13926 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 15/02/02 00:59 Pour : "Robert E. Harris" cc : "bridge-laws" Objet : Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? > > No Way! (I quote my 2 year old granddaughter's > favorite phrase.) The trump lost and I ended up > making one trick less than I should have made. > +=+ You do realize just how abnormal you are? :-) And not to claim was irrational ! But let me quote a distinguished authority: (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *** - - 2 43 - - 3 4 - 32 32 - - 2 A A jp rocafort *** __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 02:56:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FFuDf15749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:56:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FFu4H15723 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:56:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bkZQ-0001HU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:46:44 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215104334.00b1fa30@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:47:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle - correction In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215093117.00b27eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001401c1b5f3$cea9cf00$071de150@dodona> <015c01c1b53a$912164e0$d16f7ad5@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 09:41 AM 2/15/02, I wrote: >Nobody doubts this. We all indisputably agree that careless or >inferior plays that are irrational must not be regarded as >normal. The debate is over whether there are plays that are both >careless or inferior and rational which must be regarded as normal. That was a typing error; I invoke L25A. Last line should have read: ...both careless or inferior and rational which must NOT be regarded as normal. Apologies for any confusion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 03:43:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FGgmw21371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:42:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FGgcH21342 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:42:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.131.195] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16blIS-000955-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:33:17 +0000 Message-ID: <003901c1b63e$67ce85a0$cf0ee150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "Peter Gill" , "ton kooijman" References: Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:30:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "'Peter Gill'" ; "BLML" Sent: 15 February 2002 08:27 Subject: RE: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) > > > hello all of you, agreeing isn't it? That > is too good to be true. Years ago this > situation was brought up in an article > and the approach was that the answer > isn't clear and depends on the trump > holding. If this declarer has the deuce > of trumps and his top diamonds he will > not play his trump but his diamonds, kind > of natural protection. But if it is a high > trump he might, so therefore the answer > depends, the better the holding the more > tricks you loose. No need to say that I > agree with this idea. Don't ask me what > the decision is with the trump 9. I hear > David B. grumbling. > +=+ I support the underlying position that ton adopts, but I think what he is saying may need some slight refinement. I think the answer is not governed so much by the size of the trump as such, but by the normal state of mind of a player with the particular holding. Is he to fear more a trump loser or loss of control of the hand if he plays out the trump? And I do not think we can let him attempt to *draw* a trump if he has failed to say so in a statement of claim and it is not apparent that he was aware of the presence of a trump and knew it was smaller than his own (Law 70C). I reach a tentative conclusion that it is normal for a player to protect himself in the order he plays his cards from whatever he perceives to be the chief danger in the blind residual position, but not so as to override 70C. This seems to suggest that it may be 'normal' not to play trump first in situations where drawing a trump is excluded under 70C since the inference is that when 70C does not exclude the play any trump extant will be of a higher order than claimer's trump. Circular but nonetheless logical. The foregoing conjecture also suggests to me that in Barton's conundrum the only scope for uncertainty or lack of confidence is in the long club suit, so that it is normal in consequence to play on clubs before releasing the controls in the other suits. ~ 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 Feb 16 04:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FHDuu27321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:13:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FHDkH27288 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:13:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FH4MZ23322; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:04:22 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:05:53 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:22 PM 2/14/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> Then you don't want L70A. I assert that it is impossible >>to design an algorithm, especially a simple one, that will >>produce equity. You can have equity or algorithms, but not >>both. > >If we choose to have equity, our appeals committee rulings will be >self-justifying ("equity is what we say it is"). No two committees will >see equity quite the same way, and will be able to use their different >views of equity to give, and justify, different rulings in similar situations. Indeed. And they will also be able to give different rulings in different cases, which algorithms will not allow. [I.e., we will have two cases where the algorithms requires us to give the same ruling even though the situations are obviously different, such that bridge-equity is not served by giving the same ruling.] This is the nature of algorithms--they reduce the ability of adjudicators to give biased, illogical, or simply divergent rulings, but to the very same degree they reduce the ability of adjudicators to give divergent rulings based on real divergences. [Compare the argument in the US over "Three strikes" laws--one side says that they prevent judges from giving unjustiably lenient sentences, while the other side points out that they prevent judges from giving justifiably lenient sentences.] You pick which danger seems greater to you. More on that in a later post. >If, OTOH, we choose to have algorithms, we may find ourselves unable to >achieve perfect equity, but at least we will be making consistent rulings, >and have an objective basis on which to justify them. Quite true. We will achieve objectively-produced injustices. :) >The problem with choosing algorithms is that we will never be able to >write enough algorithms to cover every possible case. We will still need >L70A so we can have something, even if it's only the vague and subjective >goal of equity, for the cases that our algorithms don't cover. Exactly, yes. But I would phrase it this way: _even if_ you have algorithms, you still have to tell people the general goal of claim law in L70A. And it would be silly to give a general goal of claim law, and then have algorithms that don't correspond to that goal. >That, as I read L70, is where we are now: L70B-E give us algorithms, and >L70A requires us to do our best to achieve equity when those algorithms >fail us. Our choice is between attempting to improve and expand the >algorithms we already have, or to do away with them in favor of making all >rulings subjective and self-justifying. I favor the former, but >reasonable people may (and undoubtedly will) disagree. I don't want them to be self-justifying. If we say that equity means 'what probably would have happened', or something like that, then this is a matter that can be the subject of rational, non-arbitrary, debate. But I don't mind algorithms...as long as they're justified in terms of L70A. That is, if you can show me that suits-top-down usually produces somethign close to equity [I think it does], then by all means give us that algorithm. >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 05:00:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FI07o06341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:00:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FHxxH06323 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:59:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FHo8Z14284; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:50:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215110653.00a32e90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:51:41 -0600 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: The real danger of harsh claim laws (was, Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200202142155.QAA20186@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 04:55 PM 2/14/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > One is not harsh on claimers - only on faulty claimers ,and with good > > reason, many times they get away with it .So if you claim make a > > statement,and if you make no statement that should mean only one thing that > > the tricks are yours however you play them. > >The above is certainly algorithmic, but adopting it would take a >massive education project. We have to publicize that "It is really bad >to claim without a statement, and if you do it, we'll try to punish >you." Maybe it would have made for a better game if that approach had >been in effect all along, but we are now very far down a different >track. Is it possible to go back? Is it desirable? I don't see this as the problem. If harsh claim laws punished only people who claimed with no statement, then I would have no real problem with them. [I wouldn't like them even then, but I wouldn't object to them so strongly.] The problem is that the same laws get applied to people who make statements that are imperfect. Are you going to apply different algorithms to the person who claims with no statement and the person who makes a claim statement that breaks down because he has forgotten a trump or miscounted a suit? Or, worse, the person who has not made any such error, but simply failed to make his _statement_ perfectly? Note that most of the claim cases we have been discussing were _not_ claims with no statement--the declarer made a statement, perhaps even an otherwise adequate statement, but had made some calculation mistake or had some flaw in expression that made the exact order of his play uncertain. Consider the running-clubs case. Remember, declarer has not yet cashed the Q of clubs and seen that the J does not fall. If you want to say that a declarer who claims here without saying anything at all deserves the worst possible result, I won't complain too much. [Although I agree with Steve that you'd better accompany the law with a major educational campaign.] But I do not think that a declarer deserves the worst possible result who claims saying "This hand's high" or "Playing the Q of clubs and then I'm up" or, worst of all, "once the J of clubs drops under my Q I'll be up". In all cases declarer is trying to speed up play, and is giving us a statement that he thinks is adequate, but in fact is not. This is the real danger of harsh claim laws. Some have said that such laws are ok because "he'll know better the next time". But that's false in most cases, because in most cases declarer has no idea that his claim statement is faulty to begin with, because he doesn't remember the missing trump or whatever. So if you screw faulty claimers, or if you write algorithms that sometimes screw imperfect claim statements, then the result will be that people will _justifiably_ fear that an imperfect claim statement will lead to a zero, and they'll never claim except in cases where they are certain beyond all possible doubt that their claim _statement_ will be flawless beyond all reproach. Since hardly any player can say that they will never made an imperfect claim statement, many players will never claim at all. >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: >1. Something fairly hawkish, as Israel suggests. >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > by case basis. >3. Something algorithmic but not so hawkish as 1. > >I know we have quite a few votes for 1; mine is for 3 (probably a >minority of one, as usual). I think I sense a few for 2. Of course I vote for 2, at least. But that's probably the only vote it'll ever get. :) >the only votes that count are those of the LC members, and they will >no doubt want to cast theirs in private discussion. I do hope they >will tell us the result. I hope they will tell the players in every bridge club and tournament the result. Even your most beautiful algorithms will not produce consistent claim rulings if 99% of the club directors and small tournament TDs have never seen them. 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 Feb 16 05:15:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FIFOp08666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:15:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FIFFH08639 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:15:15 +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 NAA27853; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:05:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:05:52 -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) 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 Karel wrote: As most of you guys quote law numbers and sub paragraphs etc, I've bought an up to date (I hope) law book and now read the appropriate law under discussion. Law 25B seems pretty amazing It seems to say that a player can change his bid so long as his pd has not bid. If he changes his original bid his pd can't bid for the rest of the auction and there may be lead penalties should your side defend. Now in the case in question you pass a cue bid LHO passes and now you say whowww I want to change my call. You bid game or slam as pd is forced to pass - there is no lead penalty as pd is declaring and you're happy .... I'm sure I must have got this wrong ... __________________________________________________________________________ Just look at the flow chart DSW put on his WEB at http://blakjak.com/lwx_dub0.htm 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 Sat Feb 16 05:49:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FImmB14559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:48:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FImeH14536 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:48:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:39:19 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:56:23 -0600 To: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr, BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2002 18:39:19.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[143FA9C0:01C1B650] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1FImfH14539 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >"Grattan Endicott" >Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >15/02/02 00:59 > > > Pour : "Robert E. Harris" > cc : "bridge-laws" > Objet : Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? > > > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Speech impelled us to purify the dialect >of the tribe" ~ T S Eliot. >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert E. Harris" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:39 PM >Subject: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? > > >> >> No Way! (I quote my 2 year old granddaughter's >> favorite phrase.) The trump lost and I ended up >> making one trick less than I should have made. >> >+=+ You do realize just how abnormal you are? :-) > And not to claim was irrational ! > But let me quote a distinguished authority: > (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits > Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will > lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his > sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >*** > > > - > - > 2 > 43 > >- - >3 4 >- 32 >32 - > > - > 2 > A > A > >jp rocafort Thanks, JP, but my case was not in this class. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 06:13:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FJCjF18967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:12:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJCaH18940 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:12:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bndb-0004i3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:03:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215133455.00a98ac0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:03:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 2/15/02, Grant wrote: >At 05:22 PM 2/14/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>If, OTOH, we choose to have algorithms, we may find ourselves unable >>to achieve perfect equity, but at least we will be making consistent >>rulings, and have an objective basis on which to justify them. > > Quite true. We will achieve objectively-produced injustices. :) There's a problem with "justice": it is even more subjective than "equity". With algorithms, we get objectively produced rulings which will be justices to some and injustices to others. I am certain that if we ever get the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide a case in which everyone involved agrees as to what the just outcome is, we will somehow manage to produce that outcome no matter what the algorithms, rules, interpretations -- or even TFLB -- may say. But in the other ninety-nine point more-nines-than-will-fit-here percent of the cases, we do not have a choice between justice and injustice, we have a choice between one person's justice and another's. We can acknowlege that we would all prefer "the" just ruling over "the" unjust ruling, but that won't help us make rulings. Meanwhile, though, we do have, at least to some extent, a choice between objective rulings and subjective rulings, and I know which I prefer. As Grant says, different situations require different rulings; we will never eliminate subjectivity and achieve perfect objectivity. But we do know the difference between more-subjective-less-objective rulings and more-objective-less-subjective ones. >>The problem with choosing algorithms is that we will never be able to >>write enough algorithms to cover every possible case. We will still >>need L70A so we can have something, even if it's only the vague and >>subjective goal of equity, for the cases that our algorithms don't cover. > > Exactly, yes. But I would phrase it this way: _even if_ >you have algorithms, you still have to tell people the general >goal of claim law in L70A. And it would be silly to give a >general goal of claim law, and then have algorithms that don't >correspond to that goal. > >>That, as I read L70, is where we are now: L70B-E give us algorithms, >>and L70A requires us to do our best to achieve equity when those >>algorithms fail us. Our choice is between attempting to improve and >>expand the algorithms we already have, or to do away with them in >>favor of making all rulings subjective and self-justifying. I favor >>the former, but reasonable people may (and undoubtedly will) disagree. > > I don't want them to be self-justifying. If we say that equity >means 'what probably would have happened', or something like that, >then this is a matter that can be the subject of rational, non-arbitrary, >debate. But I don't mind algorithms...as long as they're justified >in terms of L70A. That is, if you can show me that suits-top-down >usually produces somethign close to equity [I think it does], then >by all means give us that algorithm. In the words of the immortal David Burn, someone buy that man a drink. To work towards the goal of equity, we need not abjure algorithms. But we do need to take a great deal of care in choosing our algorithms. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 06:14:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FJEhb19374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:14:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJEZH19353 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:14:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-180-141.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.180.141]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BB5318A3A60; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:05:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006401c1b651$979030a0$8db4f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:48:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 08:18 PM 2/14/02, Walt wrote: > >| Was this [L25B] added or changed in the '97 Laws? > >It was added in 1987, which was the last round of changes prior to 1997's. > >Eric Landau There were changes in 25B in '97, so THIS 25B was added in '97. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 06:21:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FJLMg20543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:21:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJLCH20523 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:21:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=David) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16bnlT-0002Jh-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:11:24 +0000 Message-ID: <005201c1b654$e2302a40$0200a8c0@David> From: "David Barton" To: "Steve Willner" , "Grant Sterling" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215110653.00a32e90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: The real danger of harsh claim laws (was, Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:13:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule > >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: > >1. Something fairly hawkish, as Israel suggests. > >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > > by case basis. > >3. Something algorithmic but not so hawkish as 1. > > > >I know we have quite a few votes for 1; mine is for 3 (probably a > >minority of one, as usual). I think I sense a few for 2. Of course > > I vote for 2, at least. But that's probably the only vote > it'll ever get. :) > > >the only votes that count are those of the LC members, and they will > >no doubt want to cast theirs in private discussion. I do hope they > >will tell us the result. > . > > Respectfully, > Grant > You may be out on a limb by voting for 2 but I am right there with you. In fact I believe that the phrase "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to BOTH sides" can only be achieved by using method 2. How stuffing claimer with the worst result possible squares with this objective, I am at a loss to understand. Still confused:- David@Barton-Bramhall.fsnet.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 Feb 16 06:38:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FJc3o23203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:38:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FJboH23176 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:37:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJSBZ22921; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:28:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215132119.00a3ead0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:29:35 -0600 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215082718.00b26a00@pop.starpower.net> References: <200202142155.QAA20186@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 09:02 AM 2/15/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Because the reality on the ground under fire is that when one of our >players is "subjected" to a ruling by a TD or AC, it isn't all that >important to them whether they perceive the ruling to have been forgiving, >equitable or Draconian. What really matters to them is that they perceive >that they got the same ruling that the last person in their situation got >and that the next person in their situation will get. This statement is absolutely vital, and is _in my experience_ empirically false. I have seen far more cases where a player was upset with a ruling because he thought it was Draconian or inequitable than I have seen cases where one was upset because they thought it was different from some other ruling. [Not that that doesn't sometimes upset them, too.] I have heard people on several occasions say things to the effect of "I don't care if that's the law, it's not fair." They didn't doubt for a minute that I would rule exactly the same way against someone else or that any other TD would rule that way--they perceived the ruling itself as inherently wrong. In fact, this would seem to be almost necessarily true, since to be upset at perceived variation requires one to have familiarity with multiple similar cases that produced varying results, and most bridge players will never be in the position. Being upset at a draconian penalty requires only one draconian ruling. If I thought that more problems are caused by the preception of variation than the perception of undue harshness, then I would think differently about the relative importance of equity versus consistency. [I still don't think it would matter to my position on claim law specifically, but it would matter for other laws.] >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 06:56:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FJtxj25997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:55:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FJtnH25974 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:55:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJk5Z00361; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:46:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215133855.00a35500@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:47:36 -0600 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Cc: "bridge-laws" In-Reply-To: <006d01c1b5b4$622de440$5148e150@dodona> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@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 11:55 PM 2/14/02 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > But I've beaten this horse pretty hard before, > > and it still won't get up and run. > > >+=+ Did you stop to think maybe its a camel ? It does spit, now that you mention it. >There are limits to the value of illustrations; each I was unclear...I want not just illustrations, but also clear explanations of the _purpose_ of each law. If the purpose of the law is explained, then honest TDs and ACs will be able to apply it even if the language of the law itself is not perfectly precise. David Burn wants the language to be written so precisely that the law applies itself--I regard that as absolutely impossible. Tell us the spirit of the law, and we'll be able to figure out what the letter says. Tinker with the letters, and there'll be no end to it. >exemplifies a particular point - where the law >expresses a comprehensive principle the number >of illustrations required is 'n'. But there is a place Good illustrations don't just tell us how to judge a single case, they show us the thought processes we're supposed to use in applying the law to all cases, and that helps us understand what the law means. >for examples - the WBF President has asked us >to back the Code of Practice with 'jurisprudence' >to target the need. When the Salt Lake City >contingent surfaces again we will try to get the >first instalment of 'jurisprudence' on the road. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Excellent. But remember that the Laws are available in most clubs around the world, whereas the CoP, or a jurisprudential addition to the CoP, is not. Respectfully, Grant, Dromedarian ["It's nailed to its perch!"] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 16 07:03:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FK2mk27133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:02:48 +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 g1FK2cH27102 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:02:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1FJrCx03581 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:53:12 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202151953.g1FJrCx03581@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Discussion on RE: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:53:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Feb 15, 2002 12:45:56 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, 15 Feb 2002 00:45:56 +0000 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > In article <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > > > >But not with much attention, by the look of things. A director must > >consider, as alternatives to a proposed new linne of play, only normal > >lines (L70D). Thus, even though it may be both careless and inferior to > >play trumps first, if it is not normal to play trumps first, then a line > >based on playing trumps first must not be admitted. The words > >"regardless of whether it would be normal to play trump first" amount to > >a dereliction of duty (as well as a woeful syntactical desuetude). > > > >> It is fundamental that a claim which is flawed costs the claimer > >> unless the action proposed is totally and utterly surreal - > >> irrational - if you will. > > > >I know of no such principle, nor can I find one embodied in or implied > >by the Laws. > > then your interpretation, and mine, are entirely at variance. ... and I > have been following the thread closely and in complete incredulity. TY: I also believe that there is no mandate to punish an erroneous claim. Merely to ensure equity. The laws (IMHO) are fairly clear that the point it to restore equity, not merely to punish. As an example, in a case of a revoke, there is a stated penalty, however, if the stated penalty is not sufficient to restore equity, the TD can assign an adjusted score to restore equity (L64C). The laws do not specify that an AssAS should be increased to provide equity, plus penalty. I believe that the correct ruling is to award least favorable result to the offender, but not on the basis that it is fundamental to penalize the claim, but to be consistent. For example, if declarer holding the T98 of trump claims that his hand is "all high" and someone mentions they still hold the J of trumps, the right ruling is to give the defense one trick. Declarer didn't lose anything by the flawed claim, but equity was restored by granting the defense the one trick they were entitled. -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 Feb 16 07:18:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FKHsA29736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:17:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FKHjH29718 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:17:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1FK8OB04438 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:08:24 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202152008.g1FK8OB04438@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:08:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Grant Sterling" at Feb 15, 2002 01:29:35 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, 15 Feb 2002 13:29:35 -0600 > From: Grant Sterling > > At 09:02 AM 2/15/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >Because the reality on the ground under fire is that when one of our > >players is "subjected" to a ruling by a TD or AC, it isn't all that > >important to them whether they perceive the ruling to have been forgiving, > >equitable or Draconian. What really matters to them is that they perceive > >that they got the same ruling that the last person in their situation got > >and that the next person in their situation will get. > > This statement is absolutely vital, and is _in my experience_ > empirically false. I have seen far more cases where a player was > upset with a ruling because he thought it was Draconian or > inequitable than I have seen cases where one was upset because > they thought it was different from some other ruling. [Not > that that doesn't sometimes upset them, too.] I have heard > people on several occasions say things to the effect of "I don't > care if that's the law, it's not fair." They didn't doubt for > a minute that I would rule exactly the same way against someone > else or that any other TD would rule that way--they perceived the > ruling itself as inherently wrong. > In fact, this would seem to be almost necessarily > true, since to be upset at perceived variation requires > one to have familiarity with multiple similar cases that > produced varying results, and most bridge players will > never be in the position. Being upset at a draconian > penalty requires only one draconian ruling. > If I thought that more problems are caused by the > preception of variation than the perception of undue > harshness, then I would think differently about the relative > importance of equity versus consistency. [I still don't > think it would matter to my position on claim law > specifically, but it would matter for other laws.] > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > TY: Oddly enough, I have seen both sides of this. As many people know, Eric and I live in the same region and know each other. Eric's experience tends to be the overall attitude in our large weekly game and our tournaments. In the Washington DC area, we have a large crowd of "tournament" players and since we have access to a large number of tournaments, this crowd is different that the club crowd. We have a reasonably large group of people that take up the option to play in tournaments almost every week except for the summer months (June-August). We have 15 local sectionals, about 8 reasonably close regionals, 3 2-week nationals plus GNT and NAP weekends. It's very easy for the players around here to pick up 40 weeks of tournaments around here. I think that Eric's idea that players want the consistency and construe that consistency with fair (as in "what the last and next player would get"). However, I play a good deal more club level games than Eric (and not that much anymore, but I still play 3 sessions a month in club games), and I think that club players are more apt to want the "fair" ruling which is the best that they can conceive. They don't care how consistent the ruling is. And those players are ones that constantly harp about how bad the directors are. -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 Feb 16 07:56:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FKtU306492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:55:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FKtLH06461 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:55:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1FKjuM28711; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:45:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:37:23 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Klaims are eezy To: Karel cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020215154601-r01010800-f03567d1-0904-0109@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 2/15/02 at 2:23 AM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > South's claim is "I have the rest". He has not stated any line of play. True. > I believe in such situations that the defenders can "force" declarer > to play the hand in ANY way which isn't "irrational". You have a strange view of what the laws say. :-) Law 70B3 says "The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim." The rest of Law 70 deals with how the Director is to rule on the claim. Nothing in there about anybody "forcing" claimer to play the hand in any way whatsoever. Aside from that, there's Law 68D: when a claim is made, play ceases. > South appears to be basing his claim on 5 club tricks or 5 spade > tricks. To maximise both these options (singleton CJ comming down or > the 5th spade comming home) - he is highly unlikely to discard a club > or a spade. He will and I believe can be forced to discard a diamond > which seems quite normal. At this stage he can't make -1. The TD in > effect forced south to discard a club from dummy and then allowed him > to test the spades 1st and then the clubs 1st before finally falling > back on the diamond finesse. See above re: forcing. > This is a very specific line of play, and I don't think should be > allowed. Seems right to me. Law 70D and E. > the level of the player involved this hand has many pitfalls and if declarer > was that good a player he should have realised that these could occur and > only claim when he was 200% sure. It is certainly legal to claim when there is more than one possible outcome of the hand. Of course, in order to avoid an adverse ruling, claimer must state a line of play that encompasses the possibilities. "200% sure" is neither required nor, IMHO, desirable. 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 Feb 16 09:45:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FMior25647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:44:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FMifH25623 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:44:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16bqwn-0006Wq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:35:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215163343.00abbba0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:35:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215132119.00a3ead0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020215082718.00b26a00@pop.starpower.net> <200202142155.QAA20186@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 02:29 PM 2/15/02, Grant wrote: >At 09:02 AM 2/15/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>Because the reality on the ground under fire is that when one of our >>players is "subjected" to a ruling by a TD or AC, it isn't all that >>important to them whether they perceive the ruling to have been >>forgiving, equitable or Draconian. What really matters to them is >>that they perceive that they got the same ruling that the last person >>in their situation got and that the next person in their situation >>will get. Not that they *get* the same ruling, but rather that they *perceive that they got* the same ruling. > This statement is absolutely vital, and is _in my experience_ >empirically false. I have seen far more cases where a player was >upset with a ruling because he thought it was Draconian or >inequitable than I have seen cases where one was upset because >they thought it was different from some other ruling. [Not >that that doesn't sometimes upset them, too.] I have heard >people on several occasions say things to the effect of "I don't >care if that's the law, it's not fair." They didn't doubt for >a minute that I would rule exactly the same way against someone >else or that any other TD would rule that way--they perceived the >ruling itself as inherently wrong. > In fact, this would seem to be almost necessarily >true, since to be upset at perceived variation requires >one to have familiarity with multiple similar cases that >produced varying results, and most bridge players will >never be in the position. Unfortunately, human beings have no trouble perceiving inequities that aren't there. Players do get upset when they believe they have gotten a ruling that might have gone, or might the next time go, differently for someone else. They don't need to know that it has actually happened; often enough it hasn't, and it won't. >Being upset at a draconian >penalty requires only one draconian ruling. > If I thought that more problems are caused by the >preception of variation than the perception of undue >harshness, then I would think differently about the relative >importance of equity versus consistency. [I still don't >think it would matter to my position on claim law >specifically, but it would matter for other laws.] I find what Grant says to be very interesting; there is a clear difference in our empirical observations. When someone thinks they got a bum ruling from a committee and walks away mumbling, the mumbles I hear are rarely "...too harsh...", "...Draconian..." "...the law's not fair...", but rather "...friend of...", "...doesn't like me...", "...wouldn't have ruled that way against..." and the like. When the infamous "oh sh-t" ruling hit the fan, the overwhelming negative reaction wasn't "the law is too lenient"; it was "I'll bet they wouldn't have let *me* get away with that". But I play exclusively in D.C. area tournaments (except for the occasional Nationals), where the overall standard of play is extraordinarily high compared to most of the U.S., and the only club-level game I ever play in is the Washington Bridge League Unit Game, which is probably the strongest club-level game in the country. I can easily believe that our players are far more sophisticated and knowledgeable when it comes to the laws than most. So I am forced to concede that my experience may well be atypical. It is certainly true that if we were suddenly to start making David-Burn-school rulings on claims, our players would rise up in arms against us. They would indeed need a bit of intensive education first -- I'd estimate about 40 years' worth. Consideration of Grant's remarks has led me to something of a revelation; I can be a bit slow sometimes. Yes, our players do complain a lot more about the law being inconsistently applied than about the law being too harsh. But that probably doesn't mean, as I previously assumed, that they care more about consistency than about harshness. More likely it means that, for the most part, they perceive the status quo as one in which the laws are *not* too harsh, but in which the laws *are* being inconsistently applied. Yes, we have a problem with consistency. Yes, we need to fix it. Yes, we need algorithms, but they must be carefull chosen ones, lest we repair the dashboard radio but disable the ignition in the process. And if we fix the consistency problem by making laws that our players perceive as Draconian, I agree with Grant that that is what we will do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 16 10:38:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1FNcR626098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:38:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1FNcJH26094 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:38:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.11.213] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16brmj-0000Uu-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:28:58 +0000 Message-ID: <004001c1b678$ef8fe440$d50be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <007a01c1b466$8df21140$b6dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <011001c1b513$813c3fe0$d16f7ad5@pbncomputer> <0hvm2qBEpFb8EwlL@asimere.com> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:27:57 -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, February 15, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) > > then your interpretation, and mine, are entirely > at variance. ... and I have been following the thread > closely and in complete incredulity. > > +=+ Enclosed within high walls, Tradition is a city steeped in history; from it the Path of Inspiration leads through the Gate of Change towards the Future Heights. Only the young and agile of spirit venture upon this path. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Feb 17 11:20:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1H0Iiw10171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:18:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1H0IYH10144 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:18:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id EF552487AF; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:09:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:07:37 -0500 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:30 PM +0000 2/12/02, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing >with the original ruling which started the thread? > >Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of >voting consensus? I doubt voting will achieve any sort of consensus. I think I'm with the majority on this one, but were I in the minority a vote would not convince me of the error of my ways. >Original problem: > >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump >and 2 winning Diamonds. She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are >winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? Correct. WTP? Suppose declarer claimed holding the trump Ace and a side Ace, with the lead in his hand and no trump in dummy. It would not be normal for him cash the side Ace first, since there might be a small trump out. The laws require the defense to score a trick if a defender holds a trump and a void in the side suit, so the laws clearly require us to take into account "abnormal" plays, so long as they are not "irrational". I would go so far as to say the lawmakers intended us to consider such "abnormal" lines when they used the term "careless or inferior". To take another tack, allow me to introspect for a moment. If I claim it is because I am certain the rest of my cards are winners, and there are no trump out. I wouldn't "normally" play either suit first, it would be a matter of complete indifference to me. In fact I may have claimed partly to avoid having to make the arbitrary decision of which suit to play first. -- 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 Feb 17 18:10:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1H7A4529204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:10:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1H79sH29182 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:09:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench ([204.210.47.32]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: <029b01c1b780$cbd7d0e0$202fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu> <2xFmScBtmFb8EwFd@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:00:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > > of these I'm fairly hawkish. Can we poll AKTxx facing Q9xx? I'm curious. > > I say it depends on the class of event, not the class of player. Off the top of my head, I would give five tricks to anyone in the finals of the Blue Ribbon, but to no one in the qualifying rounds. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, CA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 17 22:11:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HBAlb12181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:10:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HBAZH12154 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:10:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.60.239] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16cOzO-000MBc-00; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c1b7a2$cec22720$ef3ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:59:23 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) > > Suppose declarer claimed holding the trump Ace > and a side Ace, with the lead in his hand and no > trump in dummy. It would not be normal for him > cash the side Ace first, since there might be a > small trump out. The laws require the defense to > score a trick if a defender holds a trump and a > void in the side suit, so the laws clearly require > us to take into account "abnormal" plays, so long > as they are not "irrational". I would go so far as > to say the lawmakers intended us to consider > such "abnormal" lines when they used the term > "careless or inferior". > +=+ Whether you are right or not in this last belief, the existence of Law 70C has no bearing on it. 70C applies in defined circumstances and does not offer itself as referable otherwise. The specific question whether the footnote intends what it does not say - "... includes all play ..." - is not addressed in any of the material circulated at the time of the 1987 review. The footnote in the 1975 book reads so as to include all such plays; usage continued the practice without questioning the intent after the footnote was altered. The current footnote is worded in a way that does not require all such plays to be included in the 'normal'; Law 70D does require that any alternative line of play to be considered by the Director shall be 'normal' and examples have been cited where a play is not considered because it is not a normal play. This establishes that plays to be excluded for their abnormality can be specified. ~ 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 Feb 17 22:11:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HBAle12180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:10:47 +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 g1HBAYH12149 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:10:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.60.239] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16cOzM-000MBc-00; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:56:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:55:26 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: Re: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) > > To take another tack, allow me to introspect for > a moment. If I claim it is because I am certain > the rest of my cards are winners, and there > are no trump out. I wouldn't "normally" play > either suit first, it would be a matter of complete > indifference to me. In fact I may have claimed > partly to avoid having to make the arbitrary > decision of which suit to play first. > +=+ However, for the Director in applying Law 70 your motivation is of no consequence. He is solely concerned with Laws 70C, 70D, 70E and the footnote, when the procedure in the law causes your claim to be tested. And 'alternative normal line of play' means normal for players generally except that matters of inferiority, carelessness and irrationality, are to be judged by the generality of players of the same class as yourself. Naturally, I recognize :-) that you may be unique in that class. ~ 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 Feb 18 00:07:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HD6R902877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:06:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HD6IH02858 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:06:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95920.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.176] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1HCuqc12975 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:56:52 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C6FA8AE.1030703@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:57:18 +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: VOTE on ruling (was Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At 7:30 PM +0000 2/12/02, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >> Maybe we can close the debate for now by agreeing or disagreeing with >> the original ruling which started the thread? >> >> Maybe we should think of closing all threads with some sort of voting >> consensus? > > > I doubt voting will achieve any sort of consensus. I think I'm with the > majority on this one, but were I in the minority a vote would not > convince me of the error of my ways. > voting won't work, and setting precedents won't work; you're all in favour of consensus, but you won't change your minds. you're a bunch of stubborn idiots. (me included probably) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 18 04:56:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HHtb517588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:55:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HHtRH17563 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:55:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1364.bb.online.no [80.212.213.84]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04732 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:45:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:45:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have the strong feeling that the real question now is: What protection do we want to give a claimer who has been "careless" enough to make a faulty claim, as opposed to the protection we give the claimants opponents? In my lawbook from 1935 I find that "any matter that the claimers statement has left unsettled shall be settled as the applicable opponent directs". There is no mentioning of "not irrational" or "not insane" play here. In my lawbook from 1949 I find that the Director determines the result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant's opponents. In this process he shall in particular forbid departures from any statement made by the claimant. Neither here do we see any word like "irrational" or "insane". Since then we have been given rules to the effect that the Director shall not only (primarily) protect opponents, but also the claimant after a faulty claim. The question apparently still stands at what constitutes "irrational" play for the purpose of rejecting an objection to the claim from opponents. I have noticed one example in this thread where TD allowed the claimant to first try spades, then clubs and finally fall back on a diamond finessee after both the other chances had failed. The only problem was that unless the claimer limited the club chance to dropping a stiff Jack rather than try for a 3-2 break (or Jack on the short hand) he would have to destroy the diamond chance long before he could know whether he would need it or not. Probably the director did not notice this suicide squeeze situation, but with rules that a competent player should also be competent enough to mention all important features of the line of play on which he based his claim, TD would not have made such a faulty decision in the first place. How reasonable (against the opponents) is it to rule that a claimer who has already demonstrated overlooking an essential feature of the game with his claim, shall still be awarded the results from a favourable "obvious" play, even when he has not in any way indicated the intention to follow such a line? And as we have seen on this thread: There are different opinions as to what constitutes the "obvious" play. (Unless of course if this line of play would automatically have been revealed had the play progressed without any claim. For instance when a forgotten outstanding trump must show up in a position where there is no way declarer could not cover it with a higher trump) I foresee the situation where declarer claims "spades are high", one opponent objects because "I have four to the Jack" and declarer then introduces a separate line which is "obvious": "Of course I try the hearts first for a drop of the queen". True, that separate line is indeed obvious for any player who sees that extra chance in hearts, but will not a claimant with a statement like the above have disqualified himself from that extra chance? So what about the claimant who did not mention anything except "rest is mine". Shall he be awarded a good result by being allowed to try that extra chance first because that line is "obvious" and he did not specifically disqualify it by only mentioning the spades with his claim? Is it only with an outstandoing trump we shall not accept statements like "of course I pull that last trump first"? Are we not on rather thin ice here? 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 Feb 18 08:41:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HLevW27427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:40:57 +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 g1HLelH27401 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:40:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.25.114] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16cYtx-000O8X-00; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:31:17 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1b7fa$d6321d00$7219e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <200202142155.QAA20186@cfa183.harvard.edu> <2xFmScBtmFb8EwFd@asimere.com> <029b01c1b780$cbd7d0e0$202fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:24:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > I say it depends on the class of event, not > the class of player. Off the top of my head, > I would give five tricks to anyone in the finals > of the Blue Ribbon, but to no one in the > qualifying rounds. > +=+ So that David Burn gets five tricks in the Bermuda Bowl but only four at the YC Bridge Club? Then the quality of his statement has to be higher at the YC: this has to be right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 18 09:27:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HMR6a04254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HMQwH04236 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:26:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-232.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.232] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16cZdy-0004gc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:18:51 +1300 Message-ID: <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:17:46 +1300 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > I have the strong feeling that the real question now is: > > What protection do we want to give a claimer who has been > "careless" enough to make a faulty claim, as opposed to the > protection we give the claimants opponents? > > In my lawbook from 1935 I find that "any matter that the claimers > statement has left unsettled shall be settled as the applicable > opponent directs". There is no mentioning of "not irrational" or > "not insane" play here. > > In my lawbook from 1949 I find that the Director determines the > result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant's > opponents. In this process he shall in particular forbid departures > from any statement made by the claimant. Neither here do we > see any word like "irrational" or "insane". > > Since then we have been given rules to the effect that the > Director shall not only (primarily) protect opponents, but also > the claimant after a faulty claim. The question apparently still > stands at what constitutes "irrational" play for the purpose of > rejecting an objection to the claim from opponents. > > I have noticed one example in this thread where TD allowed the > claimant to first try spades, then clubs and finally fall back > on a diamond finessee after both the other chances had failed. > The only problem was that unless the claimer limited the club > chance to dropping a stiff Jack rather than try for a 3-2 break > (or Jack on the short hand) he would have to destroy the > diamond chance long before he could know whether he would > need it or not. > > Probably the director did not notice this suicide squeeze > situation, but with rules that a competent player should also > be competent enough to mention all important features of the > line of play on which he based his claim, TD would not have > made such a faulty decision in the first place. > > How reasonable (against the opponents) is it to rule that > a claimer who has already demonstrated overlooking an > essential feature of the game with his claim, shall still be > awarded the results from a favourable "obvious" play, even > when he has not in any way indicated the intention to follow > such a line? And as we have seen on this thread: There are > different opinions as to what constitutes the "obvious" play. I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how "obvious" does the obvious have to be? An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs could indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the job " The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: East K North A J 10 9 8 6, West void South Q 7 5 4 3 2 One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West had shown out! He lost that trick. If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of play in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? > > (Unless of course if this line of play would automatically have > been revealed had the play progressed without any claim. > For instance when a forgotten outstanding trump must show > up in a position where there is no way declarer could not > cover it with a higher trump) > > I foresee the situation where declarer claims "spades are high", > one opponent objects because "I have four to the Jack" and > declarer then introduces a separate line which is "obvious": > "Of course I try the hearts first for a drop of the queen". > > True, that separate line is indeed obvious for any player who > sees that extra chance in hearts, but will not a claimant with > a statement like the above have disqualified himself from that > extra chance? > > So what about the claimant who did not mention anything > except "rest is mine". Shall he be awarded a good result by > being allowed to try that extra chance first because that line > is "obvious" and he did not specifically disqualify it by only > mentioning the spades with his claim? > > Is it only with an outstandoing trump we shall not accept > statements like "of course I pull that last trump first"? > > Are we not on rather thin ice here? > > 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 Mon Feb 18 09:50:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HMoW007075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:50:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HMoMH07046 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:50:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47555.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.195]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1HMei815153 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:40:44 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:41:08 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I see nothing in what Sven wrote that makes me believe anything but "klaims are eezy". Sven Pran wrote: > I have the strong feeling that the real question now is: > > What protection do we want to give a claimer who has been > "careless" enough to make a faulty claim, as opposed to the > protection we give the claimants opponents? > Indeed. I believe we should leave him with a certain amount of carelessness, but not an enourmous amount, as some are suggesting. > In my lawbook from 1935 I find that "any matter that the claimers > statement has left unsettled shall be settled as the applicable > opponent directs". There is no mentioning of "not irrational" or > "not insane" play here. > This means playing low from both sides. Clearly we don't want laws like this. > In my lawbook from 1949 I find that the Director determines the > result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant's > opponents. In this process he shall in particular forbid departures > from any statement made by the claimant. Neither here do we > see any word like "irrational" or "insane". > That's better already. > Since then we have been given rules to the effect that the > Director shall not only (primarily) protect opponents, but also > the claimant after a faulty claim. The question apparently still > stands at what constitutes "irrational" play for the purpose of > rejecting an objection to the claim from opponents. > > I have noticed one example in this thread where TD allowed the > claimant to first try spades, then clubs and finally fall back > on a diamond finessee after both the other chances had failed. > The only problem was that unless the claimer limited the club > chance to dropping a stiff Jack rather than try for a 3-2 break > (or Jack on the short hand) he would have to destroy the > diamond chance long before he could know whether he would > need it or not. > Well, I can imagine cases like this. A player claims, let's say to get things moving along. "If trumps are not 5-0 this is easy". That statement is true, and it is a claim, but of course trumps are 5-0. Why should we not allow claimer to play one of the top trumps to see the position, and then play the only sensible line afterwards. Maybe a quite complicated one, but one that we judge this declarer to play for. I know what you are going to say "why did he not play the one trump before claiming". And you'd be right. But there are cases where it's not that simple. Suppose after his statement, which was not intended as a claim, one opponent says "I have 5 trumps, one down". Indeed the statement constitutes a claim, and we must rule on it. > Probably the director did not notice this suicide squeeze > situation, but with rules that a competent player should also > be competent enough to mention all important features of the > line of play on which he based his claim, TD would not have > made such a faulty decision in the first place. > > How reasonable (against the opponents) is it to rule that > a claimer who has already demonstrated overlooking an > essential feature of the game with his claim, shall still be > awarded the results from a favourable "obvious" play, even > when he has not in any way indicated the intention to follow > such a line? And as we have seen on this thread: There are > different opinions as to what constitutes the "obvious" play. > I quite agree with this statement. I always look for the particular mistake that a claimer has made, and stick him with it. But I don't stick him with too harsh illogical lines (I am not trying to introduce yet another word here, merely attempting not to use a tainted one) > (Unless of course if this line of play would automatically have > been revealed had the play progressed without any claim. > For instance when a forgotten outstanding trump must show > up in a position where there is no way declarer could not > cover it with a higher trump) > Exactly the type of cases I am talking of. > I foresee the situation where declarer claims "spades are high", > one opponent objects because "I have four to the Jack" and > declarer then introduces a separate line which is "obvious": > "Of course I try the hearts first for a drop of the queen". > Well, that is a new line. Declarer thinks spades are high and he must play them. TD shall determine when he is bound to notice, and if the alternate line is still available then, he shall judge if claimer could fail to notice that line. > True, that separate line is indeed obvious for any player who > sees that extra chance in hearts, but will not a claimant with > a statement like the above have disqualified himself from that > extra chance? > Indeed he would. > So what about the claimant who did not mention anything > except "rest is mine". Shall he be awarded a good result by > being allowed to try that extra chance first because that line > is "obvious" and he did not specifically disqualify it by only > mentioning the spades with his claim? > Would depend on the caase, but I don't think we should. > Is it only with an outstandoing trump we shall not accept > statements like "of course I pull that last trump first"? > > Are we not on rather thin ice here? > Been watching too much speed skating, Sven ? I hate to admit it but I'm rooting for the dutch on the Ice. But I was happy to see the Norwegians win against the Italians (that's in the Cross-Country skiing for you Winter-Olympics-non-watchers out there) - what an epic battle every time ! > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 18 09:58:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HMw8808047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:58:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HMvwH08020 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:57:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0715.bb.online.no [80.212.210.203]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA13072; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:47:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ray Crowe" , References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:47:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ray Crowe wrote .....(snip) > I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how > "obvious" does the obvious have to be? > > An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs could > indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the job " > > The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > > East K > > North A J 10 9 8 6, > > West void > > South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > > One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West > had shown out! He lost that trick. > > If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of play > in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by > 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to cover the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is far below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, not to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" in the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? 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 Feb 18 10:25:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1HNOkm11568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:24:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HNOaH11544 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:24:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1369.bb.online.no [80.212.213.89]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00669; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:15:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:15:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" .....(snip) > > In my lawbook from 1935 I find that "any matter that the claimers > > statement has left unsettled shall be settled as the applicable > > opponent directs". There is no mentioning of "not irrational" or > > "not insane" play here. > > > > > This means playing low from both sides. Clearly we don't > want laws like this. No, I believe it meant that the claimant should give a statement sufficient to specify the line of play he intended so that there was no critical matters left that could affect the result. If he states that the spades can be run from the top that obviously prevented any request to start with a low one from each hand. The main advantage of such laws was IMO that they enforced a certain dicipline when claiming. Although I am not particularly eager for all the "harsh" consequences I do favour laws that prevents attempts to gain by obscuring the play, whether intentional or unintentional. .....(snip) > > How reasonable (against the opponents) is it to rule that > > a claimer who has already demonstrated overlooking an > > essential feature of the game with his claim, shall still be > > awarded the results from a favourable "obvious" play, even > > when he has not in any way indicated the intention to follow > > such a line? And as we have seen on this thread: There are > > different opinions as to what constitutes the "obvious" play. > > > > > I quite agree with this statement. I always look for the > particular mistake that a claimer has made, and stick him > with it. But I don't stick him with too harsh illogical > lines (I am not trying to introduce yet another word here, > merely attempting not to use a tainted one) Agreed, but as the consequence of failing to run a suit through could be that opponents not only made that trick but in addition a whole bunch of additional tricks in their own suit, I am not so sure I accept this as too harsh on the claimant. However, no two cases are normally alike, they must of course be judged individually. .....(snip > > Are we not on rather thin ice here? > > > > > Been watching too much speed skating, Sven ? > I hate to admit it but I'm rooting for the dutch on the Ice. > But I was happy to see the Norwegians win against the > Italians (that's in the Cross-Country skiing for you > Winter-Olympics-non-watchers out there) - what an epic > battle every time ! Yeah, that final resembles the relay final between Norway and Russia in the world championships back in 1980 (unless my memory fails me). There is a standard question in Norway: "Where were you when Braa broke his stick?" (Oddvar Braa for Norway made it with a couple of centimeters margin after breaking his stick and being handed a replacement from a quick reacting spectator. We still do not understand why there was no heart attacks reported at the time) I haven't been watching much this time, I really watched the Olympics in Oslo in 1952, both skating and skiing, but now I have a much more relaxed attitude to most kinds of sport. However, I really enjoyed watching Australia receiving its first Gold medal to a very surprised skater this evening! If you didn't see the 1000m short-haul men's final and have a chance to see a replay - be sure not to miss 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 Mon Feb 18 20:18:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1I9H0T06449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:17:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1I9GoH06421 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:16:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1124.bb.online.no [80.212.212.100]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA22766 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:07:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001a01c1b85b$aa7df240$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:07:18 +0100 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 Those last comments to my post simply strengthen my opinion that the Tenerifa decision might have been too lenient on the claimant. (But if this thread is to continue I would prefer it to concern the principles of what protection against silly plays the claimant shall have - not that actual case!) For those who are not familiar with the Swedish language, Hans-Olof just confirms that also in the Swedish National championships for pairs some 50 years ago a player holding 12 trumps to the AQ finessed the trump King and failed because the King was offside. With such really "irrational" plays having occurred in real life I am now convinced that it must be wrong to "protect" a careless claimant from making silly mistakes when judging the result of a game. If he doesn't state that the King will drop under the Ace, he should be assumed not to be aware of it. etc. etc. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:14 AM Subject: SV: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Hej, Sven! > Det hände i en svensk SM-parfinal för bortåt 50 år sedan ocks,, d v s att en > spelare maskade i hjärter med kung singel borta. När Väst inte bekände > frågade Öst: inga hjärter, partner? (Det var tillåtet att fråga på den > tiden.) > Och när spelföraren spelade hjärter andra gången, sade Väst: hjärter, > partner! (Han "visste" ju att Öst hade hjärter kvar. > Med bästa hälsningar > Hans-Olof Hallén > ----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- > Från: "Sven Pran" > Till: "Ray Crowe" ; > Skickat: den 17 februari 2002 23:47 > Ämne: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > > Ray Crowe wrote > > .....(snip) > > > I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how > > > "obvious" does the obvious have to be? > > > > > > An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs > > could > > > indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the > job > > " > > > > > > The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > > > > > > East K > > > > > > North A J 10 9 8 6, > > > > > > West void > > > > > > South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > > > > > > One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though > West > > > had shown out! He lost that trick. > > > > > > If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of > > play > > > in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved > by > > > 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? > > > > IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. > > > > With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to > cover > > the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is > > far > > below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, > not > > to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" > in > > the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. > > > > And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar > > stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. > > > > Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? > > > > 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 Feb 18 20:59:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1I9xIZ12648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:59:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1I9x9H12626 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:59:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47166.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.56.62]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1I9ndg05598 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:49:39 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C70CE4D.8070704@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:50:05 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > .....(snip) > >>>In my lawbook from 1935 I find that "any matter that the claimers >>>statement has left unsettled shall be settled as the applicable >>>opponent directs". There is no mentioning of "not irrational" or >>>"not insane" play here. >>> >>> >> >>This means playing low from both sides. Clearly we don't >>want laws like this. >> > > No, I believe it meant that the claimant should give a statement > sufficient to specify the line of play he intended so that there > was no critical matters left that could affect the result. If he > states that the spades can be run from the top that obviously > prevented any request to start with a low one from each hand. > > The main advantage of such laws was IMO that they enforced > a certain dicipline when claiming. Although I am not particularly > eager for all the "harsh" consequences I do favour laws that > prevents attempts to gain by obscuring the play, whether > intentional or unintentional. > I agree, except with the unintentional bit. Of course if a player has (in his mindset) forgotten to execute a simple safety, we don't give it back. But when his claim does not prove that he did not see the obvious line, we should not rule against him too rashly. > > -- 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 Feb 18 21:01:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IA1jb12989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:01:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IA1aH12961 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:01:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47166.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.56.62]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1I9qAg08332 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:52:10 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:52:36 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > Ray Crowe wrote > .....(snip) > >>I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how >>"obvious" does the obvious have to be? >> >>An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs >> > could > >>indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the job >> > " > >>The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: >> >>East K >> >>North A J 10 9 8 6, >> >>West void >> >>South Q 7 5 4 3 2 >> >>One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West >>had shown out! He lost that trick. >> >>If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of >> > play > >>in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by >>71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? >> > > IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. > > With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to cover > the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is > far > below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, not > to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" in > the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. > > And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar > stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. > > Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? > Yes it should, and it does; This has happened once. it has been recounted a thousand times since. That puts it into the minds of people as "not never happening". Yet it is not normal. Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 18 21:03:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IA2uG13138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:02:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IA2jH13099 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:02:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47166.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.56.62]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1I9rHg09540 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:53:17 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C70CF27.8050206@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:53:43 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <001a01c1b85b$aa7df240$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > Those last comments to my post simply strengthen my opinion > that the Tenerifa decision might have been too lenient on the > claimant. (But if this thread is to continue I would prefer it to > concern the principles of what protection against silly plays the > claimant shall have - not that actual case!) > > For those who are not familiar with the Swedish language, Hans-Olof > just confirms that also in the Swedish National championships for > pairs some 50 years ago a player holding 12 trumps to the AQ > finessed the trump King and failed because the King was offside. > Once in 50 years, and you still think this is not irrational? > With such really "irrational" plays having occurred in real life I am now > convinced that it must be wrong to "protect" a careless claimant from > making silly mistakes when judging the result of a game. If he doesn't > state that the King will drop under the Ace, he should be assumed not > to be aware of it. etc. etc. > > Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" > To: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:14 AM > Subject: SV: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > > >>Hej, Sven! >>Det hände i en svensk SM-parfinal för bortåt 50 år sedan ocks,, d v s att >> > en > >>spelare maskade i hjärter med kung singel borta. När Väst inte bekände >>frågade Öst: inga hjärter, partner? (Det var tillåtet att fråga på den >>tiden.) >>Och när spelföraren spelade hjärter andra gången, sade Väst: hjärter, >>partner! (Han "visste" ju att Öst hade hjärter kvar. >>Med bästa hälsningar >>Hans-Olof Hallén >>----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- >>Från: "Sven Pran" >>Till: "Ray Crowe" ; >>Skickat: den 17 februari 2002 23:47 >>Ämne: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle >> >> >> >>>Ray Crowe wrote >>>.....(snip) >>> >>>>I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how >>>>"obvious" does the obvious have to be? >>>> >>>>An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs >>>> >>>could >>> >>>>indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the >>>> >>job >> >>>" >>> >>>>The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: >>>> >>>>East K >>>> >>>>North A J 10 9 8 6, >>>> >>>>West void >>>> >>>>South Q 7 5 4 3 2 >>>> >>>>One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though >>>> >>West >> >>>>had shown out! He lost that trick. >>>> >>>>If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of >>>> >>>play >>> >>>>in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved >>>> >>by >> >>>>71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? >>>> >>>IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. >>> >>>With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to >>> >>cover >> >>>the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it >>> > is > >>>far >>>below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, >>> >>not >> >>>to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" >>> >>in >> >>>the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. >>> >>>And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar >>>stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. >>> >>>Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? >>> >>>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/ > > > -- 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 Feb 18 21:18:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IAIKT15977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:18:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IAIAH15953 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0557.bb.online.no [80.212.210.45]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12761; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:08:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003201c1b864$39c162e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CE4D.8070704@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:08:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" .....(snip) > Of course if a player has (in his mindset) forgotten to > execute a simple safety, we don't give it back. > But when his claim does not prove that he did not see the > obvious line, we should not rule against him too rashly. And that is where we disagree: You give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, I want to give it to the opponents. 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 Feb 18 21:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IAPxS16949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:25:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IAPoH16930 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:25:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0701.bb.online.no [80.212.210.189]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA21728; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:16:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003601c1b865$4e2156e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:16:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" .....(snip) > > Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? > > > > > Yes it should, and it does; > This has happened once. it has been recounted a thousand > times since. That puts it into the minds of people as "not > never happening". Yet it is not normal. I certainly agree this is not "normal", but we cannot bypass the fact that it has indeed happened, and not only once. > Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a > declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? If we request him with a claim (replacing a playout) to make it clear that he is aware of the outstanding essential card(s) we shall have no problem. The laws explicitly requires that from the claimant when any trump is outstanding, I see no logical reason why the same should not be the rule regarding other essential cards as well. 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 Feb 19 02:16:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IFFO010370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:15:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IFFEH10346 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:15:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from aedwards (p20t6.std.dialup.ncf.carleton.ca [134.117.137.74]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with SMTP id g1IF5hl23880 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:05:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000801c1b956$ba375900$0700a8c0@aedwards> From: "Tony Edwards" To: Subject: re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:04:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1B92C.CF7C1640" 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_0005_01C1B92C.CF7C1640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I discussed this thread yesterday with the DIC of a local sectional I was working at. He pointed me to this document in the ACBL tech files. The article was written by a director called Chris Patrias. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1B92C.CF7C1640 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="R-CLAIMS" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="R-CLAIMS" R-CLAIMS.951 (PAGE 1) _____________________ CLAIMS MADE WITH AN OUTSTANDING TRUMP - LAW 70D The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of = play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. With Spades as trumps, the lead is in the dummy and declarer says dummy's good". Dummy: CASE 1: Spades A CASE 2: Spades 2 CASE 3: Spades = Q Hearts A Hearts A Hearts = A Diamonds - Diamonds - Diamonds = - Clubs A Clubs A Clubs = A =20 Defender holds: Spades K Hearts - Diamonds AK Clubs - In Case 1, no one should have any problem awarding exactly one = trick to the defenders. Declarer may not play the ace of trumps to = extract any trump of which he was likely unaware and the defender will be = able to rough one of declarer's outside aces. In Case 2, should the Director require that declarer lead the deuce = of spades first? The argument put forth to support this position says that since declarer is convinced that all of dummy's cards are = good, the Director should shuffle them and randomly pick the deuce. This line of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are equal. However it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically different and any value that the deuce has as a trump would be = wasted by leading it. Remember also that the Laws dealing with claims = keep referring to "normal" lines of play, which embraces the careless = and inferior play but not the irrational. The only rational purpose in playing the deduce is to execute some sort of squeeze, which = clearly does not apply in example 2 above. The play of the deuce is not rational: it can do not good, and may be harmful. What then if dummy's trump is the 4? or the 6? or the 8? Where = should one draw the line? Consider the third case. Would it be normal for declarer to play = the queen of spades? If declarer plays out the hand, confident that = his outside cards are good, he might well play the queen as a "safety check" for any overlooked trump. It is certainly not abnormal for = a declare to play a "high" trump in these situations. Thus, the declarer in Case 3 should be forced to play the queen since it is a normal play consistent with his statement of claim. This is true = even though we would NOT ALLOW declarer to play the queen if it were to = his advantage to do so. =0C R-CLAIMS.951 (PAGE = 2) = _____________________ Obviously, Directors will seldom be faced with the extremes = presented in 1 and 2 above; most situations will fall somewhere in between.=20 However, this principle can be applied whenever the Director rules that declarer's card is such that it would be normal to use it to = draw trumps. Some cards are inherently high in rank: the ace, = obviously, but also the king and the queen. Lesser cards may also fall into = this category because of the way that play has gone prior to the claim.=20 Declarer may falsely believe that a card has been established = because he thinks he has forced out all of the higher ones, for instance. = The important point to recognize is that there is a difference between = a card that is thought good because of rank and one that is thought = good by virtue of being the last remaining. Whenever there is an attempt to establish guidelines, there is a = risk that some will use them in lieu of common sense or even of law.=20 Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to form a basis for consistency. With this in mind, the following are given as = guidelines concerning claims: A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst = possible for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the top down). B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage. C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety = check with a "high" trump. D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his = trumps to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the = suit. (Directions - July/October, 1992) ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1B92C.CF7C1640-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 02:23:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IFNJj11766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:23:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1IFNAH11739 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:23:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.77.166] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16cpU6-0009A8-00; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:13:42 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c1b88e$c87ebb20$a64de150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001a01c1b85b$aa7df240$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:11:22 -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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: 18 February 2002 09:07 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > For those who are not familiar with the Swedish > language, Hans-Olof just confirms that also in > the Swedish National championships for pairs > some 50 years ago a player holding 12 trumps > to the AQ finessed the trump King and failed > because the King was offside. > +=+ The LHO should be complimented on the smoothness with which he played to the trick. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 02:40:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IFeJS15155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:40:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IFeAH15130 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:40:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70268.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.124]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1IFUe805802 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:30:40 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C711E39.1050806@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:31:05 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CE4D.8070704@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b864$39c162e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > .....(snip) > >>Of course if a player has (in his mindset) forgotten to >>execute a simple safety, we don't give it back. >>But when his claim does not prove that he did not see the >>obvious line, we should not rule against him too rashly. >> > > And that is where we disagree: You give the claimant the > benefit of the doubt, I want to give it to the opponents. > That's absolutely not what I'm saying ! I'm saying that I don't have doubt, in many cases. This whole discussion is totally useless without examples. Which is why I maintain there is no problem, because every time a serious example comes up, we tend to agree. > Sven > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 03:06:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IG6f119974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:06:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IG6VH19939 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0866.bb.online.no [80.212.211.98]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA28613; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:57:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1b894$e0425a40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> <003601c1b865$4e2156e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C711EBE.9080403@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:56:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a > >>declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? > >> > > > > If we request him with a claim (replacing a playout) to make it > > clear that he is aware of the outstanding essential card(s) we > > shall have no problem. > > > > > We don't this ! > > > > The laws explicitly requires that from the claimant when any > > trump is outstanding, I see no logical reason why the same > > should not be the rule regarding other essential cards as well. > > > > > But we don't require this for trumps ! > > Surely you you would not give a trick if this were the trump suit? Sure I would if (Law 70C) 1: Claimer made no statement about the outstanding trump 2: it is at all likely that he was unaware of that trump 3: could lose a trick to the trump by any "normal" play. As for condition 2: He might simply have (incorrectly) "registered" in his mind that the trump had been used. Any doubt here shall result in a ruling for the opponents, at least that is how I read the laws. Do you accept a claimer stating afterwards: "Of course I was aware of that outstanding trump, I just didn't bother to mention it" ? 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 Feb 19 03:43:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IGhNd25658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:43:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IGh1H25599 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:43:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1HFp4o21788 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:51:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:55:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CE4D.8070704@village.uunet.be> <003201c1b864$39c162e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <003201c1b864$39c162e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003201c1b864$39c162e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Herman De Wael" >.....(snip) >> Of course if a player has (in his mindset) forgotten to >> execute a simple safety, we don't give it back. >> But when his claim does not prove that he did not see the >> obvious line, we should not rule against him too rashly. > >And that is where we disagree: You give the claimant the >benefit of the doubt, I want to give it to the opponents. > >Sven As a hawk, I concur. 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 Feb 19 03:44:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IGhow25725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:43:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IGhcH25698 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:43:39 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 5579C8F8C; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:31:00 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:23:19 -0500 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:16 AM +0100 2/14/02, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >3NT by S > >AQJ10x >Jx >Axx >A10x > >xx >Qxx >QJx >KQxxx > >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is >returned. West takes the king and returns >a third heart, declarer pitching >a diamond from dummy. South now takes >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing >that West follows declarer claims >stating "I have the rest". Some so-called hawks have suggested the ruling should be down one. Nonsense! Declarer presumably thought he had nine tricks when he claimed -- I see no reason to believe he hadn't miscounted the spades. Accordingly he might as well pitch down to the DA, win the diamond return, run four more spades, and take the CAKQ. Down four! What's the moral? There's no reason to believe that a declarer who can't count to nine can count to thirteen. When you're a hawk you're a hawk all the way... I admit that in practice I'd likely rule down one. It would make for a more interesting case if the clubs were 3-2. -- 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 Feb 19 04:37:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IHbMn05107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:37:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1IHbDH05083 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:37:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.35]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRQ0031ZNRSE6@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:11:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:10:19 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle To: Bridge Laws , Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <008201c1b89f$36823ba0$534e003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What give anybody the right to protect anybody from a mistake that could be made [it has been proven] If you don't make a statement it is the duty of the T.D. to make that mistake for you . Or maybe you protect also the player from making such a mistake? Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Ray Crowe wrote > > .....(snip) > > > >>I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how > >>"obvious" does the obvious have to be? > >> > >>An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs > >> > > could > > > >>indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the job > >> > > " > > > >>The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > >> > >>East K > >> > >>North A J 10 9 8 6, > >> > >>West void > >> > >>South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > >> > >>One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West > >>had shown out! He lost that trick. > >> > >>If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of > >> > > play > > > >>in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by > >>71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? > >> > > > > IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. > > > > With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to cover > > the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is > > far > > below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, not > > to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" in > > the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. > > > > And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar > > stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. > > > > Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? > > > > > Yes it should, and it does; > This has happened once. it has been recounted a thousand > times since. That puts it into the minds of people as "not > never happening". Yet it is not normal. > Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a > declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 05:08:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1II7kd08869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:07:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1II7OH08819 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:07:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IHtgZ19696; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:55:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020218111739.00a4dc70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:57:13 -0600 To: "Sven Pran" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Ray Crowe" , In-Reply-To: <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:47 PM 2/17/02 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > > > > East K > > > > North A J 10 9 8 6, > > > > West void > > > > South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > > > > One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West > > had shown out! He lost that trick. > > > > If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of >play > > in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by > > 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? I agree that L71C should be re-worded, but that is outside the scope of this thread, which is about L70. If claimer really said "I will play low and lose to your K of trump, then..." I agree that it would be wrong to give him his trick back. I think that the normal plays referred to in L71c should be understood as involving plays not explicitly referred to in the clarification statement. Example [no-trump]: dummy [irrelevant] LHO RHO S - S AK H - H AK D - D - C A643 C - declarer S - H - D 2 C T52 Declarer says "I'll cash my last diamond and then give you three tricks." Of course, he can't help but win a club trick as long as he plays his lowest club under LHO's club winner. It would certainly not be normal to play high under a winner, so claimer gets one trick back. But if claimer had _said_ he was going to play the Ten of clubs under LHO's Ace, I wouldn't give him the trick back on the grounds that his play was irrational. >IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. > >With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to cover >the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is >far >below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, not >to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" in >the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. Indeed. More proof for my claim that there is virtually no play so stupid that we can't find some decent player who actually did it once, and hence the class of plays that are "never done" is empty. >And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar >stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. > >Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? Of course we should. Because such mistakes are so uncommon that it would be absurd to say that because a player has miscounted trumps or has thought that the 8 of spades was out when really it was the ten, that therefore he would finesse while holding 12 cards in a suit. If that's what we're going to do to claimers, then I will have to advise every player to never claim, because 1 time in a thousand even the best players forget a trump on a claim, and if every failed claim is now a '0', then claiming costs too much. Further, everyone seems to have forgotten that claimers often _lose_ tricks on their claims, and by claiming they have given up any hope of getting lucky. In other words, there are three possible outcomes to consider: a) cases where the claimer would have done something really stupid had the hand been played out, b) cases where the claimer would have faced a non-obvious choice had the hand been played out, and c) cases where the non-claimers would have done something really stupid had the hand been played out. We 'protect' the claimer is situation 'a', yes, but not in either situation 'b' or 'c'. Now please list all the cases in Norwegian championships where defenders made stupid errors late in a hand to punt extra tricks to declarer, where we wouldn't give those tricks to a declarer who would have claimed earlier. :):):):):) >Sven 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 Feb 19 06:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IJNWT20037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:23:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1IJN6H19954 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:23:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IJDHZ20380; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:13:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020218130538.00a37ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:14:46 -0600 To: Israel Erdnbaum From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <008201c1b89f$36823ba0$534e003e@erdnbaum> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@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 07:10 PM 2/18/02 +0200, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >What give anybody the right to protect anybody from a mistake that could be >made [it has been proven] >If you don't make a statement it is the duty of the T.D. to make that >mistake for you . Or maybe you protect also the player from making such a >mistake? >Best regards Israel The same is true for the defense, then? If I claim a certain number of tricks, what gives anyone the right to assume that the defenders would have followed suit--haven't you ever seen a revoke? I shall claim tomorrow against you, and insist that the TD evaluate the claim with the understanding that you will revoke on each and every trick. [I will make sure that my claim statement precisely specifies the cards I will play from both my hand and dummy, of course. :)] A claim ends play. Once play has ended, a TD must assess the result [if the claim is disputed]. This gives him the right to decide what plays each side would probably have made. [My understanding of claim law, of course.] We do not assume that either claimer or non-claimers will commit really horrid plays from then on out, although we acknowledge that some tiny percentage of the time they would have had the hand been played out. Indeed, I would argue that stupid plays by the defense are more likely than stupid plays by claimer, so the defense is being benefitted more by ruling out irrational plays. When we also force claimer to take the least successful 'normal' play, that makes claiming a very clear net loser of tricks. To claim is to sacrifice a chance of a few tricks over the long haul for the convenience of speeding the game up for everybody and relieving the defenders of the need to worry about which cards to play and discard when it doesn't matter. It is already entirely in the defenses advantage for a declarer to claim...we need not do anything to make that advantage more extreme than it already is. If the slightest imperfection in a claim statement entails that claimer will be saddled with the worst play that any player has ever committed, then we will have solved the bad claim problem by eliminating all claims. 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 Feb 19 06:27:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IJR6R20682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1IJQuH20653 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:26:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IJH5Z22121; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:17:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020218131549.00a3bcd0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:18:34 -0600 To: "Sven Pran" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <003201c1b808$eef0eb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C703184.1050305@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 12:15 AM 2/18/02 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >The main advantage of such laws was IMO that they enforced >a certain dicipline when claiming. Although I am not particularly >eager for all the "harsh" consequences I do favour laws that >prevents attempts to gain by obscuring the play, whether >intentional or unintentional. I repeat my assertion--the current laws, even as interpreted by the most dovish of doves, cost declarers more tricks than they gain by claiming. Anyone who claims at my table because they expect to _gain_ tricks is a fool...for every hand where they would have done something idiotic had they played the hand out, there are probably ten hands where either the opponents would have done something stupid, or else they would have faced a non-obvious choice and got stuck with the losing line automatically. >regards Sven 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 Feb 19 06:44:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IJiHp23374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:44:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net [64.8.50.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IJi4H23353 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:44:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from pentium3 ([24.55.57.64]) by smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 smtprelay7 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with SMTP id GRQUDK00.IVO for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:34:32 -0500 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:42:13 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <000b01c1b894$e0425a40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >>From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a >>> >>declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? >>> >> >>> > >>> > If we request him with a claim (replacing a playout) to make it >>> > clear that he is aware of the outstanding essential card(s) we >>> > shall have no problem. >>> > >>> Especially since you have now awakened declarer that there is need for a claim statement. Can't this declarer be polite enough to draw the trump before claiming? I consider these types of claims to have violated Laws 74 A2, A3, and B1 >>> >>> >>> But we don't require this for trumps ! >>> >>> Surely you you would not give a trick if this were the trump suit? >> >>Sure I would if (Law 70C) >>1: Claimer made no statement about the outstanding trump >>2: it is at all likely that he was unaware of that trump >>3: could lose a trick to the trump by any "normal" play. >> >>As for condition 2: He might simply have (incorrectly) >>"registered" in >>his mind that the trump had been used. Any doubt here shall result >>in a ruling for the opponents, at least that is how I read the laws. >> >>Do you accept a claimer stating afterwards: "Of course I was aware >>of that outstanding trump, I just didn't bother to mention it" ? >> >>Sven I used to be on the other side, but Case 47 (page 79) from the Anaheim NABC has convinced me to change my view. http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/anaheim_Sum00.pdf Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 07:40:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IKdkp03657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:39:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IKdUH03614 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:39:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-120.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.120]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4995036F7A; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:30:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008901c1b8b8$dfb10c60$78b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:23:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk - >Those last comments to my post simply strengthen my opinion >that the Tenerifa decision might have been too lenient on the >claimant. (But if this thread is to continue I would prefer it to >concern the principles of what protection against silly plays the >claimant shall have - not that actual case!) > >For those who are not familiar with the Swedish language, Hans-Olof >just confirms that also in the Swedish National championships for >pairs some 50 years ago a player holding 12 trumps to the AQ >finessed the trump King and failed because the King was offside. > >With such really "irrational" plays having occurred in real life I am now >convinced that it must be wrong to "protect" a careless claimant from >making silly mistakes when judging the result of a game. That is a pity. While we agree on the fact that irrational play happens once in a while it is a wrong approach to assume that it will happen in all claims not explained in detail. Didn't it occur to you that the player who continued play with 12 trumps wasn't aware of that fact? And that a player who claims with 12 trumps without saying anything without any doubt uses the experience that the K will drop when playing his ace? When a player claims we have to assume that he would not have played the board irrationally. That is what the laws tell us. And assuming that declarer will not find the missing K with 12 cards is unacceptable. When a player has played irrationally or tells us in a statement he will play irrationally the TD is allowed to believe him. This means that a statement to loose a trick to an offside trump K with 12 trumps in the combined hands should be accepted. If he doesn't >state that the King will drop under the Ace, he should be assumed not >to be aware of it. etc. etc. NO,NO,NO,NO,NO, this is terrible. 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 Feb 19 07:40:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IKdhl03648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:39:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IKdUH03613 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:39:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-120.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.120]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 07DC23722B; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:30:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008801c1b8b8$df000be0$78b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:01:31 +0100 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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Those last comments to my post simply strengthen my opinion >that the Tenerifa decision might have been too lenient on the >claimant. (But if this thread is to continue I would prefer it to >concern the principles of what protection against silly plays the >claimant shall have - not that actual case!) > >For those who are not familiar with the Swedish language, Hans-Olof >just confirms that also in the Swedish National championships for >pairs some 50 years ago a player holding 12 trumps to the AQ >finessed the trump King and failed because the King was offside. > >With such really "irrational" plays having occurred in real life I am now >convinced that it must be wrong to "protect" a careless claimant from >making silly mistakes when judging the result of a game. I am as convinced as you are that this is a wrong approach. If that player holding 12 trumps had realised he had twelve he wouldn't have played the hand but had claimed. What about that approach? If he doesn't >state that the King will drop under the Ace, he should be assumed not >to be aware of it. etc. etc. > >Sven > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" >To: "Sven Pran" >Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:14 AM >Subject: SV: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle > > >> Hej, Sven! >> Det hände i en svensk SM-parfinal för bortåt 50 år sedan ocks,, d v s att >en >> spelare maskade i hjärter med kung singel borta. När Väst inte bekände >> frågade Öst: inga hjärter, partner? (Det var tillåtet att fråga på den >> tiden.) >> Och när spelföraren spelade hjärter andra gången, sade Väst: hjärter, >> partner! (Han "visste" ju att Öst hade hjärter kvar. >> Med bästa hälsningar >> Hans-Olof Hallén >> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- >> Från: "Sven Pran" >> Till: "Ray Crowe" ; >> Skickat: den 17 februari 2002 23:47 >> Ämne: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle >> >> >> > Ray Crowe wrote >> > .....(snip) >> > > I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how >> > > "obvious" does the obvious have to be? >> > > >> > > An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs >> > could >> > > indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the >> job >> > " >> > > >> > > The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: >> > > >> > > East K >> > > >> > > North A J 10 9 8 6, >> > > >> > > West void >> > > >> > > South Q 7 5 4 3 2 >> > > >> > > One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though >> West >> > > had shown out! He lost that trick. >> > > >> > > If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of >> > play >> > > in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved >> by >> > > 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? >> > >> > IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. >> > >> > With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to >> cover >> > the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it >is >> > far >> > below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to twelve, >> not >> > to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not "irrational" >> in >> > the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. >> > >> > And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar >> > stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. >> > >> > Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? >> > >> > 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 Feb 19 08:41:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ILfB815195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:41:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ILf1H15160 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:41:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70268.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.124]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1ILVXg08894 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:31:33 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7172CD.5020908@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:31:57 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> <003601c1b865$4e2156e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C711EBE.9080403@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1b894$e0425a40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, you're going over well-known territory here, I won't answer this. If all your criteria are met, do you give a trick to the queen from a 12-card holding ? Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>>>Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a >>>>declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? >>>> >>>> >>>If we request him with a claim (replacing a playout) to make it >>>clear that he is aware of the outstanding essential card(s) we >>>shall have no problem. >>> >>> >> >>We don't this ! >> >> >> >>>The laws explicitly requires that from the claimant when any >>>trump is outstanding, I see no logical reason why the same >>>should not be the rule regarding other essential cards as well. >>> >>> >> >>But we don't require this for trumps ! >> >>Surely you you would not give a trick if this were the trump suit? >> > > Sure I would if (Law 70C) > 1: Claimer made no statement about the outstanding trump > 2: it is at all likely that he was unaware of that trump > 3: could lose a trick to the trump by any "normal" play. > > As for condition 2: He might simply have (incorrectly) "registered" in > his mind that the trump had been used. Any doubt here shall result > in a ruling for the opponents, at least that is how I read the laws. > > Do you accept a claimer stating afterwards: "Of course I was aware > of that outstanding trump, I just didn't bother to mention it" ? > > Sven > > > > -- 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 Feb 19 08:43:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ILgmr15487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:42:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ILgcH15458 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:42:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70268.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.124]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1ILWwg10419 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:32:58 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C717322.4080003@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:33:22 +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: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Linda, don't you start as well. When a player claims without drawing trumps, it is commong practice to assume that he has not forgotten that there are 13 in the pack, nor that he has forgotten that the ace beats all others. Such a claim is perfectly valid. Linda Trent wrote: >>>From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>>>>>Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a >>>>>>declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>If we request him with a claim (replacing a playout) to make it >>>>>clear that he is aware of the outstanding essential card(s) we >>>>>shall have no problem. >>>>> >>>>> > > Especially since you have now awakened declarer that there is > need for a claim statement. > > Can't this declarer be polite enough to draw the trump before > claiming? > > I consider these types of claims to have violated Laws > 74 A2, A3, and B1 > > >>>> >>>>But we don't require this for trumps ! >>>> >>>>Surely you you would not give a trick if this were the trump suit? >>>> >>>Sure I would if (Law 70C) >>>1: Claimer made no statement about the outstanding trump >>>2: it is at all likely that he was unaware of that trump >>>3: could lose a trick to the trump by any "normal" play. >>> >>>As for condition 2: He might simply have (incorrectly) >>>"registered" in >>>his mind that the trump had been used. Any doubt here shall result >>>in a ruling for the opponents, at least that is how I read the laws. >>> >>>Do you accept a claimer stating afterwards: "Of course I was aware >>>of that outstanding trump, I just didn't bother to mention it" ? >>> >>>Sven >>> > > I used to be on the other side, but Case 47 (page 79) > from the Anaheim NABC has convinced me to change my view. > > http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/anaheim_Sum00.pdf > > Linda > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Feb 19 08:47:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ILl2V15993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:47:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ILkqH15965 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:46:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70268.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.124]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1ILbLg15219 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:37:21 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C717429.1020508@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:37:45 +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] Basic Claim Principle References: <008901c1b8b8$dfb10c60$78b6f1c3@tkooij> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: > - > > > > If he doesn't > >>state that the King will drop under the Ace, he should be assumed not >>to be aware of it. etc. etc. >> > > > > NO,NO,NO,NO,NO, this is terrible. > And now you've heard it from the chairman of the WBFLC. But that won't sway some on this list who are not prepared to learn, but only to argue their points. > > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 19 08:50:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ILode16521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:50:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1ILnJH16376 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:49:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ILaWZ20346; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:36:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020218151229.00a387d0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:38:02 -0600 To: "Linda Trent" From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c1b894$e0425a40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 2/18/02 -0800, Linda Trent wrote: > >> > >>From: "Herman De Wael" > >>> >>Where would we be if we would be forced to rule against a > >>> >>declarer who says nothing about a suit AT8642 - KJ9753 ? > >>> >> > >>> > >Can't this declarer be polite enough to draw the trump before >claiming? I dearly hope that all my opponents will be _impolite_ to me, because if they have to say "I will play my Ace because I have 12 trumps", then they also must say "When I say that I am running my winning diamonds I mean that I am playing first the A, then the K, then the Q..." and "When I claimed 5 club winners I meant that I would play the 2 from dummy on the Ace, and then...", and I shall then strangle them. I sincerely _want_ my opponents to claim, and I want them to give me an adequate claim statement, but I do not want them to specify every spot and every card and every totally obvious play, on the grounds that once a century I'll run into a declarer who can't count to 12. Being pedantic is not being polite. >I consider these types of claims to have violated Laws >74 A2, A3, and B1 I consider the claim you asked for to violate L74B4, since I assure it I will find it a disconcerting and unnecessary prolongation of play. > >>> But we don't require this for trumps ! > >>> > >>> Surely you you would not give a trick if this were the trump suit? Of course I would. Without hesitation. > >>Sure I would if (Law 70C) > >>1: Claimer made no statement about the outstanding trump > >>2: it is at all likely that he was unaware of that trump > >>3: could lose a trick to the trump by any "normal" play. > >> > >>As for condition 2: He might simply have (incorrectly) > >>"registered" in > >>his mind that the trump had been used. Any doubt here shall result > >>in a ruling for the opponents, at least that is how I read the laws. > >> > >>Do you accept a claimer stating afterwards: "Of course I was aware > >>of that outstanding trump, I just didn't bother to mention it" ? Of course I do. I would say the possibility that declarer has forgotten the Q of trumps [or, for that matter, _any_ trump] when he has not drawn a single round is practically equivalent to the chance that I will win a gold medal in the current Olympics. > >>Sven > >I used to be on the other side, but Case 47 (page 79) >from the Anaheim NABC has convinced me to change my view. > >http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/anaheim_Sum00.pdf Why? It seems like a routine case--the TD and AC are asked to judge whether it was 'at all likely' that the trump was forgotten. Some people thought it was at all likely, given her statement...dissenter, and some commentators, thought it was not. So what? We have a judgment call, and not everyone judged the same way. Isn't there a gaping chasm between this case and the case where declarer has 12 trumps? >Linda 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 Feb 19 09:02:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IM24A17806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:02:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IM1sH17780 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:01:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1565.bb.online.no [80.212.214.29]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA19013; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:51:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c1b8c6$6b405c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grant Sterling" Cc: References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20020218111739.00a4dc70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:51:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" a) cases where the claimer would have done something > really stupid had the hand been played out, > b) cases where the claimer would have faced a non-obvious > choice had the hand been played out, and > c) cases where the non-claimers would have done something > really stupid had the hand been played out. > We 'protect' the claimer is situation 'a', yes, but not > in either situation 'b' or 'c'. In the interest of opponents you should say "could" not "would"? > > Now please list all the cases in Norwegian championships > where defenders made stupid errors late in a hand to punt extra > tricks to declarer, where we wouldn't give those tricks to a > declarer who would have claimed earlier. :):):):):) I'm sorry, I cannot count that far! 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 Feb 19 09:07:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1IM7Qr18711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:07:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1IM7GH18687 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:07:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0304.bb.online.no [80.212.209.48]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA15662; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:57:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001d01c1b8c7$33ac0a00$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , "Grant Sterling" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020218130538.00a37ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:57:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" .....(/snip) > A claim ends play. Once play has ended, a TD must > assess the result [if the claim is disputed]. This gives > him the right to decide what plays each side would probably > have made. [My understanding of claim law, of course.] Under the current laws I shall agree with you if you rephrase this sentence replacing "would probably" by "could probably". 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 Feb 19 11:25:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1J0OU512786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:24:30 +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-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 g1J0OHH12754 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16cxvj-0008iL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:14:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:45:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? References: <006e01c1b5b4$636ccce0$5148e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006e01c1b5b4$636ccce0$5148e150@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 > But let me quote a distinguished authority: > (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits > Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will > lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his > sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." This I agree with. What I do not agree with is that you can deduce from it what a player will do with S8 H7 D6 C- when he believes all are good and the diamond is a trump. While the position is theoretically the same psychologically it is not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 19 11:25:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1J0OZm12797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:24:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1J0OHH12753 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16cxvj-0008iK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:40:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief References: <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214094329.00b1dc50@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020214173012.00a72440@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214173012.00a72440@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 09:53 14/02/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>>In particular, has the meaning >>>of "as equitably as possible" been explained? >> >>Not in the ACBL. They have justified their "hawkish" position as an >>interpretation of "irrationality", without addressing "equity". > >AG : isn't this in contradiction with the first lines of TFLB ? No. When you state an overall policy, that does *not* affect your decisions on how to approach individual problems. -- 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 Feb 19 21:05:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JA41M21348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:04:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1JA3lH21344 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:03:53 +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 KAA28258; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:53:34 +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 KAA15243; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:54:18 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:58:03 +0100 To: Grant Sterling , Eric Landau From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1JA3tH21345 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:05 15/02/2002 -0600, Grant Sterling wrote: >>If, OTOH, we choose to have algorithms, we may find ourselves unable to >>achieve perfect equity, but at least we will be making consistent >>rulings, and have an objective basis on which to justify them. > > Quite true. We will achieve objectively-produced injustices. :) AG : a former teacher at the University of Brussels used to say that "algorithms are for computers ; men deserve better than that ; asking humans to perform algorithms is treating them as brainless". Would we, TDs and members of ACs, enjoy being reduced to the rôle of brainless algorithm-users ? If this seems bumptious, we might at least realize that when using an algorithm, even the most thoughtful and best-intentioned AC will not be able to reverse the ruling. In non-algorithmic land, we might at least hope either the TD or the AC was clever when it had to be. Asking an algorithm to be clever is too much. After all, the most algorithmic law is the one that is the most often felt to be unfair, ie L64. And this is because it also penalizes benign revokes. If we also are to penalize marginally flawed claims that don't deserve it, TFLB's reputation could well receive its _coup de grâce_. 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 Feb 19 22:59:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JBwb200125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:58:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (smtph.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1JBwRH00095 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:58:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2141 invoked by uid 50005); 19 Feb 2002 11:48:57 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtph.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4186. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.299493 secs); 19 Feb 2002 11:48:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell600) ([24.229.41.34]) (envelope-sender ) by smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Feb 2002 11:48:56 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:49:05 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:58:03 +0100, Alain wrote: > >AG : a former teacher at the University of Brussels used to say that >"algorithms are for computers ; men deserve better than that ; asking >humans to perform algorithms is treating them as brainless". >Would we, TDs and members of ACs, enjoy being reduced to the rôle of >brainless algorithm-users ? > With all respect to TDs and ACs everywhere, I think this is a bad question to ask. Laws should be written for the players, not the TDs and ACs. I'm not pretending to answer the question, but the question should (IMHO) be "Would the game be improved for the players by a strictly algorithmic approach to the Laws?". Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 00:22:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JDLt213200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:21:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JDLkH13196 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:21:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16dA4B-0004rT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:12:19 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020219080810.00aae820@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:13:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <00a001c1b694$ada87d00$495f003e@erdnbaum> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020208083421.00afe660@pop.starpower.net> <3C63E275.40802@village.uunet.be> <026c01c1b0b5$5a894800$1a877ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211080807.00aade70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020211153146.00b08c50@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212083103.00b11730@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212171027.00b10480@pop.starpower.net> <3C6A2C9C.30702@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214080425.00b1cef0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020214144044.00b1aa10@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020215092408.00b1c220@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:50 PM 2/15/02, Israel wrote: >Are you telling me that you save time when claims are contested ? Is a >statement which would save this trouble so time consuming? or simply >beneath >the 'dignity' of the players involved? No, I am suggesting that we save time when people claim. I am assuming, and am confident from my own experience and observation, that only a tiny percentage of claims are contested. Our objective should be to solve our problem with *contested* claims without making the cure worse than the disease by creating a more serious problem of turning the majority of claims which are not contested into played-out hands. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 20 00:23:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JDNHb13212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:23:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1JDN9H13208 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:23:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20984 invoked by uid 50005); 19 Feb 2002 13:13:41 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net by uid 50002 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4186. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.38811 secs); 19 Feb 2002 13:13:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell600) ([24.229.41.34]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Feb 2002 13:13:41 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:13:50 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000c01c1b945$c9a4fe80$8e50003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <000c01c1b945$c9a4fe80$8e50003e@erdnbaum> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:03:10 +0200, Israel Erdenbaum wrote: >Laws should be written so that T.D.should have as little problem as possible >in administering the game in an orderly, just and equitable way ,and their >ruling should be final. >Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Well, I for one disagree with you. You could devise a set of laws that covered every possible obscure eventuality and end up with a Laws book the thickness of the "Encyclopaedia of Bridge". This would make life very simple for the TDs, but the percentage of players who even bothered to look at the Laws would plummet. Sure, make the laws as just and equitable as possible, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing with that - but when we reach the stage that a major consideration in creating the Laws is giving the TD "as little problem as possible", then I think we have a terminal case of the tail wagging the dog. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 00:33:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JDX9913391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:33:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JDX0H13364 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:33:00 +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 g1JDNVc00604 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:23:31 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Feb 19 14:19:45 2002 +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 <01KEGMBMC6GM000NVT@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:22:22 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <16W03LKL>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:22:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:22:14 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > .....(snip) > > > >>Of course if a player has (in his mindset) forgotten to > >>execute a simple safety, we don't give it back. > >>But when his claim does not prove that he did not see the > >>obvious line, we should not rule against him too rashly. > >> > > > > And that is where we disagree: You give the claimant the > > benefit of the doubt, I want to give it to the opponents. > > > > > That's absolutely not what I'm saying ! > I'm saying that I don't have doubt, in many cases. > > This whole discussion is totally useless without examples. > > Which is why I maintain there is no problem, because every > time a serious example comes up, we tend to agree. > > This sounds beyond the level of realistic optimism, reading all those messages. Or are you saying that the example with 12 trumps missing the K was just a joke? Claimers treated as terrorists, that is how I read these contributions. ton > > Sven > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 00:36:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JDaVr14022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:36:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JDaMH14001 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:36:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16dAIJ-0006Uj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:26:55 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020219081959.00b2a100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:27:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:47 PM 2/17/02, Sven wrote: >Ray Crowe wrote >.....(snip) > > I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how > > "obvious" does the obvious have to be? > > > > An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs >could > > indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on > the job >" > > > > The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > > > > East K > > > > North A J 10 9 8 6, > > > > West void > > > > South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > > > > One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even > though West > > had shown out! He lost that trick. > > > > If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of >play > > in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up > (saved by > > 71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? > >IMHO your example is indeed relevant, and very illustrative to my point. > >With the King onside it would obviously have been "irrational" not to >cover >the King with the Ace, but with the King offside (as here) although it is >far >below the standard of any player holding the ability to count to >twelve, not >to drop the King under the Ace, this play is apparently not >"irrational" in >the meaning that nobody would ever perform that way. > >And it has happened with other top players as well, I have heard similar >stories from Norwegian top level tournaments. > >Should a claim protect the claimant from making such mistakes? Yes. It may not look optimal in isolation, but it is by far preferable to the alternative, which would be to "force" a declarer whose claim statement included "six heart tricks" with AJxxxx opposite Qxxxxx to "lose" a trick to the offside king. If we really required "nobody would ever perform that way" to consider a line "irrational", I'm confident that, as it has happened somewhere sometime, we should have to award a trick to the onside king as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 20 00:40:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JDe2o14720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:40:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JDdrH14697 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:39:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.40.19718352 (4584) for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:25:46 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <40.19718352.29a3ac5a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:25:46 EST Subject: [BLML] Claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_40.19718352.29a3ac5a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_40.19718352.29a3ac5a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, I am suggesting that we save time when people claim. I am assuming, and am confident from my own experience and observation, that only a tiny percentage of claims are contested. Our objective should be to solve our problem with *contested* claims without making the cure worse than the disease by creating a more serious problem of turning the majority of claims which are not contested into played-out hands. Eric Landau -----------Sanity reigns above------------Kojak --part1_40.19718352.29a3ac5a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, I am suggesting that we save time when people claim.  I am
assuming, and am confident from my own experience and observation, that
only a tiny percentage of claims are contested.  Our objective should
be to solve our problem with *contested* claims without making the cure
worse than the disease by creating a more serious problem of turning
the majority of claims which are not contested into played-out hands.


Eric Landau   

-----------Sanity reigns above------------Kojak       
--part1_40.19718352.29a3ac5a_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 01:01:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JE1Dh18774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:01:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JE14H18758 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:01:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16dAgD-0001zE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:51:37 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020219084422.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:52:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle In-Reply-To: <000801c1b956$ba375900$0700a8c0@aedwards> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:04 AM 2/19/02, Tony wrote: >I discussed this thread yesterday with the DIC of a local sectional I was >working at. He pointed me to this document in the ACBL tech files. The >article was written by a director called Chris Patrias. I hadn't seen this document before, and was unaware that the ACBL had issued a guideline on the "last trump first" issue. The guideline itself seems quite reasonable to me, and, for what it's worth, does seem to reflect what players really do do. It's called "checking for lurkers", i.e. playing an extra round of trump, when you believe there are no more out, to make sure. The Tenerife issue concerned whether a player might "check for lurkers" with his last trump. The guideline says that to do so may or may not be irrational, a judgment which must be made on a case-by-case basis, but that it should always be considered irrational to do so for a second time, i.e. when both opponents have already shown out to a trump lead. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 20 01:48:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JElYm27287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:47:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1JElLH27251 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:47:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1JEbkv05583 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:37:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020219080810.00aae820@pop.starpower.net> Eric Landau wrote: > I am assuming, and am confident from my own experience and observation, > that only a tiny percentage of claims are contested. And of those I think only a small percentage get the director involved. Most that are flawed are so obviously flawed that the players can agree the trick division easily. As a diversion how would people feel about "the score awarded to both sides is the worst considered at all probable for the claimer". 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 Feb 20 03:06:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JG6Dv12260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:06:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JG64H12235 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:06:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17316 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:56:31 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:36:11 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c9b4f6b.659b.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.215 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott writes > >> But let me quote a distinguished authority: >> (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits >> Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will >> lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his >> sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." > > This I agree with. > > What I do not agree with is that you can deduce from it what a player >will do with S8 H7 D6 C- when he believes all are good and the >diamond is a trump. While the position is theoretically the same >psychologically it is not. Hang on David, we agree with cashing A A 2 above but in a previous thread down to two cards - trump K and an outside winner we say playing the outside winner 1st is ok ?? What about the cashing order of Trump K + side suit is not obvious ?? To answer the above question - IF S8 & H7 are winners and the D6 (trumps) maybe a winner **AND** (big big and) declarer can prove he is aware of these facts objectively then we should allow declarer to cash the side winners 1st. If on the other hand, declarer's play to date (or other factors) can produce no supporting evidence as to his ability and/or his knowledge of the rank of remaining cards then we rule against him. A clear cut case ... A A 2 is such a case or winning trump outside winner another ... then we try to rule in favour of declarer. "Clear cut" should be influenced by declarer's ability, defenders ability, play to date, past history, physical alertness (TD's judgment when called) etc. >From my own experience, it is relatively easy to spot a "bad" claim from a probable "good" one after examining the facts. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 04:43:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JHh6W29198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:43:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1JHguH29173 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:42:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1JHXOU11651 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:33:24 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200202191733.g1JHXOU11651@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:33:24 -0500 (EST) 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 I tend to agree with Eric that that majority of claims are not contested and we are dealing with the small number of contested claims. I've seen and been both declarer and defender in cases where you are playing with/against competent players and after a certain play, be it a finesse, a drop play, etc, everyone just turns in the cards for a known result...no claim, everyone just agrees on the result. The issue is disputed claims. Mostly, if someone even mentions trumps, e.g. "drawing trumps and the rest are mine" or some such evidence that they are aware of any trumps, then they are fine. In a situation where they have not made it clear that they know about any trumps and that they might check for lurkers, I would tend to award against them if a reasonable line of play asserts itself. For example, the hand: S: AJT964 H: 6 D: A7 C: QJ53 S: - S: Q H: KJ9532 H: 7 D: J93 D: QT86542 C: K742 C: T986 S: K87532 H: AQT84 D: K C: A Contract: 6S by South Auction (if it matters): S W N E 1S P 4H (1) P 4NT P 5S (2) P 6S P P P (1) heart splinter (2) 2 KC with Q (with extra length-this player shows the Q) Opening lead: C-4 After winning the lead the with the AC, the declarer faces his hand and says "the rest are mine" with no claim statement. Would you grant East an overruff of the second round of hearts? If declarer had said, "drawing trumps" or "there's one trump out" or anything hinting about the missing trump, then I would grant him making 7. If declarer omitted it, I would grant East an overruff of the second round of hearts. In other words, I think it is a normal line of play if declarer does not mention any outstanding trump as an issue, that declarer could go about his/her merry way if (s)he doesn't think about it. Declarer should stop to either draw trumps or mention drawing trumps if it is important, otherwise, it can be assumed that it wasn't considered relevent to the claim by the claimer. Flip the east and west hands and declarer always makes 7 as there is no way that the ruff can be had without seeing it and declarer can overruff with dummy's A. And if the east/west hands were reversed I would always rule making 7. In this case, there is no normal line of play that could give a trick to the opponents unless you expect declarer to undertrump or discard when LHO trumps. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 06:25:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1JJNgO15593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 06:23:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe71.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JJNXH15563 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 06:23:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:14:01 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.152.246.184] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> <002a01c1b805$1e8eb220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C70CEE4.5050003@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020218130538.00a37ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <001d01c1b8c7$33ac0a00$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Overlooked Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:13:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2002 19:14:01.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[967E1030:01C1B979] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Those who we have strong reason to believe are able to convey bridge law have put forth some important facets from L70(D). However, in this thread and the threads associated with it I would say at least one important principle has been overlooked. Taking as a premise that what has been said is valid look at Teneriffe #41. Declarer has claimed stating 'I take your last trump.' It was (at least in this thread) asserted and ruled by the AC under L70D (well, we are left to assume it was paragraph D; the instruction to 'pull one trump' is a different claim from 'pull last trump'. Surely the objection lodged was that after pulling both trump W would be able to cash his last diamond.) that for a player who has proven by play that there are two outstanding trumps that it would not be normal to pull them both. What does L70D say? We are told that it entitles a claimer who is unhappy to take a second turn to improve his lot by adding a second claim, and if claimer is still unhappy he may take a third turn to improve his lot by adding a third claim, and so forth. And it is the job of the director to rule if there is an alternative less successful normal line. It is my opinion that the most crucial aspect of ruling on claimer's second turn is what the second turn claimed. Now, for the life of me I see no evidence that claimer took a second turn. No such statement was included in the facts. So just how was a ruling to be made on a second claim that was never made? If a ruling was made on declarer's second claim a record would have been made in the appeal, wouldn't it? This requirement to take a second turn when ruling under L70D was overlooked. It appears to me what happened was that the AC made the second claim, not claimer. And it is not the AC job to do that kind of suggesting, is it? At least under L70D. As L70D clearly does not apply (there is no second claim to consider), where does that go? The claim- what was stated, and, what was left unstated. What was stated? 'I take your last trump.' In the English language this means that at least one trump is played, and more are played if there are still outstanding trump. What was unstated? Everything else. What happens after the diamond return and once the necessary two rounds of trump are played? I think it is obvious a (second) diamond trick belongs to the opponents. And what about the notion that under L70E it is irrational to not pull exactly one round of trump? L70E applies only to unstated lines. Note that the stated line was for the defender's trumps to be pulled. Regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 12:17:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14NT20798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:23 +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 g1K13RH20684 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1A-0003jX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:53:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202112148.g1BLmrO07627@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <005e01c1b391$b97a14a0$40b77ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020212091834.00b0b910@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020212091834.00b0b910@pop.starpower.net> 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 >Ted is a friend of mine and an occasional drinking companion. The list >should be warned that that man has a taste for very expensive whisky. Oh good, we can share a few when I see him. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 12:29:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K1Tcr25415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:29:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K1TSH25375 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:29:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.78.182] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16dLLV-0004Bp-00; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:14:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1b9ad$1eb5db80$b64ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <006e01c1b5b4$636ccce0$5148e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:26:17 -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: Monday, February 18, 2002 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? > Grattan Endicott writes > > > But let me quote a distinguished authority: > > (When claimer has trump 2, and in other suits > > Ace, Ace) "you cannot find a declarer who will > > lead the trump; he will hold the trump up his > > sleeve. The play of trump 2 is not winning." > > This I agree with. > > What I do not agree with is that you can deduce > from it what a player will do with S8 H7 D6 C- > when he believes all are good and the diamond is > a trump. While the position is theoretically the > same psychologically it is not. > +=+ You are entitled to your view (and I am not saying you are wrong). The generality of the matter is that we leave such bridge judgements to the Director and then the AC, to be made severally case by case. The underlying point, however, lies in the demonstration in this and some similar pronouncements that the approach to matters of normality, irrationality, and other vaguely defined values, can be susceptible to guidance from 'authority', and indeed such guidance is given on occasion. ~ 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 Feb 20 12:32:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K145R20770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13QH20677 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1A-0003jU-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:47:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <008901c1b8b8$dfb10c60$78b6f1c3@tkooij> <3C717429.1020508@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C717429.1020508@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 >And now you've heard it from the chairman of the WBFLC. >But that won't sway some on this list who are not prepared >to learn, but only to argue their points. Yes, Herman. I wonder of whom this reminds me? This list is for argument. The fact that people argue does not mean they do not learn. -- 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 Feb 20 12:47:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14KB20788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13aH20719 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1F-0003jU-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:20:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020207092246.00affaf0@pop.starpower.net> <20020207154101-r01010800-6f1dd4d4-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020207154101-r01010800-6f1dd4d4-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 9:47 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > >> Such a rule would solve all of our problems with adjudicating claims, >> both legally and practically. It's down side, however, was set forth >> clearly by Grant in his recent post in reply to David B. Let's not >> lose the forest of making the game better for our players for the tree >> of making life easier for our TDs and ACs. > >Okay. It was just a suggestion. We seemed to be heading in the direction of "how >should we change this law". This Law works pretty well, and most TDs seem to understand it - or think they do. I am not convinced that because BLML cannot agree on one or two things around this Law that apply to a small minority of cases that we should necessarily change the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 13:02:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14Oc20799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:24 +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 g1K13ZH20718 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1F-0003jV-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:28:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202121959.g1CJxGm07782@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004001c1b425$b7d89a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000901c1b7a2$cd8c6640$ef3ce150@dodona> <000e01c1b7da$ee477ae0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001101c1b800$ef1ab420$e86837d2@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ray Crowe writes >I'm not to sure if the following is relevant to this thread, but how >"obvious" does the obvious have to be? > >An example from a hand at the 1997 New Zealand National Congress pairs could >indicate that, even in a top event, a player can "go to sleep on the job " > >The heart suit (trumps) was distributed as follows: > >East K > >North A J 10 9 8 6, > >West void > >South Q 7 5 4 3 2 > >One player actually ran the Q through to the singleton K, even though West >had shown out! He lost that trick. > >If he had conceded this trick in a claim, stating the the same line of play >in his concession----- you give it to him back,when he wakes up (saved by >71C :-), because this stated line of play is irrational? Sure. An irrational play for claims is not one that never happens. A revoke is an irrational play - but it is not one that never happens - in fact it is only three days since I surprised myself by revoking. -- 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 Feb 20 13:14:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14AJ20777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13SH20687 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1A-0003jW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:56:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200202082245.g18Mjh103673@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying writes >Yes, we have quite a number of people who will say "Well, all the >trumps are out, but let's just check for lurkers, shall we? And >plays an extra round of trumps before claiming. Or "Let's get the >kiddies off the street and just in case there are any left..." >I've encountered many people who will play an extra round of trumps >when they think trumps are out, just to be sure. Maybe it's an >American thing, but I don't think so. I've encountered this at >the club level, the sectional level, the regional level and even >at the national level most recently at Las Vegas. I've encountered >this from my novice/intermediate students (who are afraid of >getting a lecture if they fail to clear trumps...even when they >think they have) to good players. So why should I deem that this >is not normal? This isn't a question of rationality, but a question >of whether it is frequent enough to be considered normal. And I >think it is. "Lekking for churkers" [sic]. Do it all the time, myself. You would be amazed at how many odd trumps appear. I have lost the semi-final of a County Competition, k/o teams, by losing to a trump after I had drawn them all. Knowledgeable people can date that by the fact that the County was the NWCBA. -- 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 Feb 20 13:16:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14Bo20779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13TH20695 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1B-0003jY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:01 +0000 Message-ID: <5rqEoHGZipc8Ew8S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:25:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@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 2/7/02 at 4:51 PM, HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) wrote: > >> A half a board procedural penalty for every claim made with no statement >> would get rid of the whole problem very soon(and probably any bridge club >> that enforced it.) Maybe directors grumbling very fiercly would do the >> trick, but not drive the customers away. > >Um. "When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once >by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will >jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." - >Preface to the North American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, >1997. > > I wonder why we see this Preface so much here. Are we not trying to run a game of bridge? If sloppy claims are prevalent enough to prevent the average players enjoyment of the came, then the TD should use his authority and L90 to deal with it, not worrying about general principles. Perhaps the next Law book should start its preface with the words: "Bridge is a game to be enjoyed by the people playing it while playing as fairly as possible, and nothing in this book should be read as suggesting 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 Feb 20 13:17:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K142420766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13NH20665 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL12-0003jY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:20:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.0.20020206092827.00af0c00@pop.starpower.net> <3C62359C.4010704@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C62359C.4010704@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 >Eric Landau wrote: >> If we were to interpret the word "irrational" in TFLB in a way that >> conforms to the normal "dictionary" meaning of the word and stopped >> muddying the waters by worrying about the "class of player involved" -- >> in other words, if we finally stopped pretending that weaker bridge >> players are necessarily less rational than stronger ones -- we would >> quickly come 90%+ of the way towards establishing a consensual >> understanding of "what is 'irrational'" (i.e. what would be irrational >> for anybody, like cashing broken suits from the bottom up), and 90%+ of >> our rulings in these situations would no longer be "all about >> judgement[s] of what is 'irrational'" that differ from one committee to >> the next. >Which is exactly what the EBLAC has done : they have >establlished a consensual understanding. >This is a case where we can debate blue in the face what is >rational and not (we're doing that right now). Why can't we >simply follow a consensus position ? It is not a consensus position. It is an opinion of an EBL AC which, if not challenged by other relevant authorities, provides a precedent for EBL competitions. That does not mean that it is either generally agreed or that it provides a precedent for non-EBL competitions. For example, the EBU L&EC have discussed it and declined to follow this view in their advice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 13:32:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14RP20805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13fH20735 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1K-0003jY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:51:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1b00a$12d07f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C62E68B.7000103@village.uunet.be> <007001c1b01b$7cab6f20$09cb049b@netop7210> <3C638D0C.9020606@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C638D0C.9020606@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 >Sven Pran wrote: >> I accept your word that it has been distributed to NBO's, but it >> has not been distributed or made available to Norwegian TD's >> (nor as I suspect in many other areas) so I stand by my claim: >> I am not bound by it against my (and the Norwegian NBO) >> understanding of law 70 as it has been until now. >Well, that is the fault of the Norwegian Federation, isn't it ? Fault? Perhaps it is their choice. Just because this booklet has been published, and you think something that few others do, does not mean that the Norwegian Federation is at fault. Nothing in the EBL regulations says that a single decision by a single AC in an EBL event is binding on a Norwegian TD, nor do I believe that anything in those regulations says that member federations of the EBL have to distribute such decisions, especially since they may not agree with them. It seems to me, Herman, that you are beginning to invent your own rules as to how the EBL should be run. I do not think your rules are "consensual". ------- Herman De Wael writes >The booklet containing the Tenerife appeals have been sent >to all EBL NCBO's, and is available on the web. I think >that is enough. This is precedence in the whole of the EBL, >and so I do believe you are bound by it as much as anybody. >(perhaps excluding the EBU). Why? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 13:45:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14Bi20778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13QH20681 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL19-0003jV-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:31:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020206115709.00a2dc60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008c01c1aef4$2cc44cc0$09cb049b@netop7210> <01C1AE8A.973F1C20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <008801c1ae8e$47a0e3c0$09cb049b@netop7210> <5.1.0.14.0.20020206101153.00a85c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020206140623.00a2d800@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3C623781.4010009@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20020207115622.00a30190@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020207115622.00a30190@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 > Then you're missing my point completely, Herman...I >must not have explained it adequately. > I am called to the table to rule on a claim. In order >to rule on it, I must understand what the word 'irrational' >means. Every time we get into an argument onb this list >about a claim, roughly four different definitions of >'irrational' get kicked about: > a) 'irrational' means 'no-one ever does this'. > b) 'irrational' means 'totally idiotic or insane'. > c) 'irrational' means 'grossly careless'. > d) 'irrational' means...well, I know it when I see it. > > As long as this situation endures, we will have >fierce disputes over claims. The only two solutions to this >problem that I can see are: > 1) for the lawmakers to drop the word 'irrational' >entirely and replace it with explicit rules for evaluating >claims, either the Burn rule or twenty Tenerife rules or >whatever. > 2) For the WBFLC to give us an official understanding >of what 'irrational' means. These are by no means the only solutions. There are the following [and others]: 3) To leave the current situation as is, and not get our knickers in a twist because BLML cannot agree. 4) To rely on various authorities around the world to give guidance to their TDs through training or other methods. 3) is not bad since this is not a big problem, despite BLML's view: we do not get a lot of real problems in this area. -- 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 Feb 20 13:47:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14Ri20803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1K13hH20741 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1N-0003jX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:52:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1AFD8.814BA6A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes > Herman wrote: >We are in a long discussion here whether it is normal or not >to play "trumps last". That must certainly be a close >decision. Now we have tried to pose a consensus, and you are >saying that this can be inequitable ? Please a little more >respect for a fine bunch of people. > > >DWS wrote earlier: > The EBU has discussed it and does not see this ruling as correct in >the EBU. Their view is that any card might be played - three tricks to >the defence. > >Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? Of course. Decisions by EBL ACs are not binding as precedents on anyone. Admittedly, you would not expect them to be ignored in EBL events, but why should they be binding on an NCBO? Of course, another thing this thread has proved, is that a lot of people have ignored what the precedent actually said and assumed it said something far stronger! ----------- Sven Pran writes >Fearghal O'Boyle asked: >> DWS wrote earlier: >> The EBU has discussed it and does not see this ruling as correct in >> the EBU. Their view is that any card might be played - three tricks to >> the defence. >> Are NBO's free to ignore the Teneriffe Guideline in the 'interim'? >Of course yes! As long as any resolution, guideline or whatever has >not been properly published in a region (or area), no TD, AC or NBO >in that region/area can be bound by it. Instead they must actually be >bound by whatever previous relevant publishing exists. > >And so far nothing of that kind has been published in Norway, nor >as it seems to me from this discussion elsewhere in the world? That's not quite right, though I agree with what I believe Sven means. The Tenerife decision has been published: it is on the Swiss site, with unofficial commentary thereon on my site. But it has not been laid down by the EBL LC, or any other body like that. -- 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 Feb 20 13:47:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14LB20794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:21 +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 g1K13NH20664 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL11-0003jV-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:53:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:07:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@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 g1K13RH20679 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 11:05 15/02/2002 -0600, Grant Sterling wrote: > > >>>If, OTOH, we choose to have algorithms, we may find ourselves unable to >>>achieve perfect equity, but at least we will be making consistent >>>rulings, and have an objective basis on which to justify them. >> >> Quite true. We will achieve objectively-produced injustices. :) > >AG : a former teacher at the University of Brussels used to say that >"algorithms are for computers ; men deserve better than that ; asking >humans to perform algorithms is treating them as brainless". >Would we, TDs and members of ACs, enjoy being reduced to the rôle of >brainless algorithm-users ? > >If this seems bumptious, we might at least realize that when using an >algorithm, even the most thoughtful and best-intentioned AC will not be >able to reverse the ruling. In non-algorithmic land, we might at least hope >either the TD or the AC was clever when it had to be. Asking an algorithm >to be clever is too much. >After all, the most algorithmic law is the one that is the most often felt >to be unfair, ie L64. And this is because it also penalizes benign revokes. >If we also are to penalize marginally flawed claims that don't deserve it, >TFLB's reputation could well receive its _coup de grâce_. While L64 has its critics, once you explain the logic, players find it acceptable because they can understand it. When you explain L16 or L73 to the same people they just think it crazy. I think more Laws like L64 would make the Law book more popular, not less. But I do not suggest that it would necessarily be better. -- 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 Feb 20 13:56:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K14NM20796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:04:23 +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 g1K13bH20721 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:03:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dL1I-0003jW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:51:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Spades are trumps. >Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning >Diamonds. >She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". > >The defenders have a master trump. >Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. > >The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >Correct? Having been away, I have read this thread at one go, and while I have commented as I read on a few peripheral matters, I have not commented on the basics. So I have decided to write one post to try to cover them. The Law says we give the defence three tricks if the play is not irrational. It also defines normal to include careless and inferior, and we include better plays than that. It is obvious to a lot of us that the Law defines two classes of play: normal and irrational. Anyone who wishes to object to this, feel free, but you are not running a game: you are arguing semantics. How do I rule in the example? Three tricks to the defence probably: some of the comments at the table could make me change my mind. It is fairly close, and the case is not a very interesting one. ------------- How about the Tenerife precedent? First, it is only a precedent for EBL events, and any other jurisdiction that says so [eg Antwerp]. Second, the precedent only applies to similar positions, not to every other claim in the world since the dawn of time with an outstanding trump. Third, the precedent should only be applied as a precedent, ie an aid to a TD or an AC, but it is not a rule that has to be applied. Fourth, it is not a guideline. To be a guideline, a relevant authority has to say it is, and they have not. --------- Should there be rules for particular cases? Certainly not absolute ones, because there are easy exceptions. If you feel with spades trumps that someone who believes there are no trumps out and believes he has all the rest of the tricks holding S A H 4 D 53 C -- will always play the spade first then that does not prove he will do so with S 7 H 4 D 53 C -- or S 2 H 4 D 53 C --. The ACBL and EBU have produced guidance in particular positions. No doubt so have other authorities. Good, that helps. But there is no reason to go mad because other authorities have not. Klaims are eezy: not all claims, true, but such a high percentage that we have not got a major problem with the existing Law. The only real problem with the Claims Law is the one we all know and confidently expect to be sorted with the next Law book, namely claims with unestablished revokes: even there the guidance from the WBFLC has made life simpler. -- 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 Feb 20 19:25:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K8Ojh06034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:24:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1K8OTH05995 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:24:29 +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 g1K8Etc11560 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:14:56 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 20 09:11:31 2002 +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 <01KEHPTJ33QI000OW5@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:13:53 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <16W0PN5T>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:13:39 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:13:52 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 > >Okay. It was just a suggestion. We seemed to be heading in > the direction of "how > >should we change this law". > > This Law works pretty well, and most TDs seem to understand it - or > think they do. I am not convinced that because BLML cannot > agree on one > or two things around this Law that apply to a small minority of cases > that we should necessarily change the Law. Happy you say so. Otherwise we had to change our laws every week twice. What do you mean with 'one or two things'? I hope you count your trumps better. ton > -- > David 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 Wed Feb 20 20:22:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K9MOo16042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:22:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1K9MEH16016 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:22:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47258.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.56.154]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1K9Cc808055 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:12:38 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7368A1.1040406@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:13:05 +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] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps References: <200202191733.g1JHXOU11651@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted, maybe Nasa can send you to the moon or mars, and you ruling will be accepted there, but certainly not on Earth: Ted Ying wrote: > I tend to agree with Eric that that majority of claims are not > contested and we are dealing with the small number of contested > claims. I've seen and been both declarer and defender in cases > where you are playing with/against competent players and after > a certain play, be it a finesse, a drop play, etc, everyone just > turns in the cards for a known result...no claim, everyone just > agrees on the result. > > The issue is disputed claims. Mostly, if someone even mentions > trumps, e.g. "drawing trumps and the rest are mine" or some such > evidence that they are aware of any trumps, then they are fine. > In a situation where they have not made it clear that they know > about any trumps and that they might check for lurkers, I would > tend to award against them if a reasonable line of play asserts > itself. > > For example, the hand: > > S: AJT964 > H: 6 > D: A7 > C: QJ53 > S: - S: Q > H: KJ9532 H: 7 > D: J93 D: QT86542 > C: K742 C: T986 > > S: K87532 > H: AQT84 > D: K > C: A > > Contract: 6S by South > Auction (if it matters): > S W N E > 1S P 4H (1) P > 4NT P 5S (2) P > 6S P P P > > (1) heart splinter > (2) 2 KC with Q (with extra length-this player shows the Q) > Opening lead: C-4 > > After winning the lead the with the AC, the declarer faces his > hand and says "the rest are mine" with no claim statement. Would > you grant East an overruff of the second round of hearts? > > If declarer had said, "drawing trumps" or "there's one trump out" > or anything hinting about the missing trump, then I would grant him > making 7. If declarer omitted it, I would grant East an overruff of > the second round of hearts. In other words, I think it is a normal > line of play if declarer does not mention any outstanding trump as > an issue, that declarer could go about his/her merry way if (s)he > doesn't think about it. Declarer should stop to either draw trumps > or mention drawing trumps if it is important, otherwise, it can be > assumed that it wasn't considered relevent to the claim by the claimer. > Surely you don't mean that you consider it "at all likely" that claimer has forgotten about the 13th trump ? You really should look at claims in context. If someone draws a few rounds of trumps, and then stops, you can find it "likely" that he has forgotten. But when someone claims after the lead, they are always believed. > Flip the east and west hands and declarer always makes 7 as there > is no way that the ruff can be had without seeing it and declarer > can overruff with dummy's A. And if the east/west hands were reversed > I would always rule making 7. In this case, there is no normal line > of play that could give a trick to the opponents unless you expect > declarer to undertrump or discard when LHO trumps. > That is true. But I consider this to be a very dove-ish ruling for someone who was prepared to be super-hawk just one paragraph previous. I consider it far more likely to forget to watch discards than to not count to 13. Yet this one is clearly covered by the laws. > -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/ > > -- 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 Feb 20 20:40:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1K9eG619411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:40:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1K9e6H19371 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:40:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3118.bb.online.no [80.212.220.46]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA26919; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:30:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003b01c1b9f1$3883c060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <5rqEoHGZipc8Ew8S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle - Law74? Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:30:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" .....(snip) > I wonder why we see this Preface so much here. Are we not trying to > run a game of bridge? > > If sloppy claims are prevalent enough to prevent the average players > enjoyment of the came, then the TD should use his authority and L90 to > deal with it, not worrying about general principles. Perhaps the next > Law book should start its preface with the words: > > "Bridge is a game to be enjoyed by the people playing it while playing > as fairly as possible, and nothing in this book should be read as > suggesting otherwise." I consider law74 the most important law in the entire book. Isn't this law just about exactly what you say, only we find it towards the end of the book rather than at the beginning? 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 Feb 20 21:00:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KA0Nd23077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:00:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KA0EH23050 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:00:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3292.bb.online.no [80.212.220.220]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10936; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:50:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004b01c1b9f3$fc3f8fa0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:50:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > we have not got a major problem with the existing Law. The only real > problem with the Claims Law is the one we all know and confidently > expect to be sorted with the next Law book, namely claims with > unestablished revokes: even there the guidance from the WBFLC has made > life simpler. Huh? What is the trouble with that? (Law63A3) Or do you see a problem with a claim immediately following an unestablished revoke by opponents? Is the problem: They have the right to correct the revoke, and then what about the claim? If a revoke has misled the subsequent claimer in any way, I would as TD give him the benefit of any doubt that could be caused by this revoke, and I feel that Laws 47 D&E give me the foundation for doing that (considering for this purpose the claim statement equivalent to a play) Burdens TD with a lot more judgement, but I think that is inevitable in such cases of "what if". Or have I completely misunderstood something? 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 Feb 20 21:43:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KAgXM01447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:42:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KAgNH01405 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:42:24 +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 LAA17521; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:32:08 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA23292; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:32:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020220113115.00a73270@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:36:40 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps In-Reply-To: <3C7368A1.1040406@village.uunet.be> References: <200202191733.g1JHXOU11651@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:13 20/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Surely you don't mean that you consider it "at all likely" that claimer >has forgotten about the 13th trump ? >You really should look at claims in context. If someone draws a few rounds >of trumps, and then stops, you can find it "likely" that he has forgotten. AG : even in this case, it might be unlikely. Say declarer plays the following trump suit : Axx Kxxxx He decides to duck a first round of trumps ; later, he plays the Ace, and both opponents follow ; he then tables and says "well, in that case they're all mine". Although he didn't explicitly mention the outlurker, his line of play and the words 'in that case' show he was aware of the fact that there were a total of 5 outstanding trumps and that he needed to find them split 3-2. We should then assume he intends to draw one more round of trumps now that he knows they're evenly split (even if doing so is bad for him). At least, this was the expected answer to an training question in the elemantary TD course in Belgium. Best regards, Alain. >But when someone claims after the lead, they are always believed. >>Flip the east and west hands and declarer always makes 7 as there >>is no way that the ruff can be had without seeing it and declarer >>can overruff with dummy's A. And if the east/west hands were reversed >>I would always rule making 7. In this case, there is no normal line >>of play that could give a trick to the opponents unless you expect >>declarer to undertrump or discard when LHO trumps. > > >That is true. But I consider this to be a very dove-ish ruling for >someone who was prepared to be super-hawk just one paragraph previous. I >consider it far more likely to forget to watch discards than to not count >to 13. Yet this one is clearly covered by the laws. > > >> -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/ > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 20 21:48:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KAm4j02500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:48:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KAltH02482 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:47:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA18857; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:37:40 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA29215; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:38:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020220113924.00a81180@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:42:13 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Stupid: Normal or Irrational? In-Reply-To: <3c9b4f6b.659b.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:36 22/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: > >From my own experience, it is relatively easy to spot a "bad" claim from > a probable >"good" one after examining the facts. AG : if Karel is to be believed (and I, for one, believe him), this is a very strong argument against the algorithmic school. As one bridge teacher said, computers won't ever make good bridge players, because they can't guess why RHO raised an eyebrow. Karel's creed implies they won't make good TDs either. 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 Feb 20 22:36:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KBaQg10166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:36:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KBaHH10133 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:36:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0742.bb.online.no [80.212.210.230]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA09130 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:26:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00b501c1ba01$7852a3e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020214170535.00b19490@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020214134501.00a355e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200202132234.RAA14002@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20020215085717.00a3a160@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020219104449.00a3fd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000c01c1b945$c9a4fe80$8e50003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Barton's relief Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:26:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" > >Laws should be written so that T.D.should have as little problem as possible > >in administering the game in an orderly, just and equitable way ,and their > >ruling should be final. > >Best regards Israel Erdenbaum > > Well, I for one disagree with you. You could devise a set of laws > that covered every possible obscure eventuality and end up with a > Laws book the thickness of the "Encyclopaedia of Bridge". This > would make life very simple for the TDs, but the percentage of > players who even bothered to look at the Laws would plummet. It would certainly not make life easier for the TD: I for one have enough material to carry if I shouldn't be loaded with a ten kilograms heavy law book in addition. Just imagine being called to a table, today I have the book in my pocket. 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 Feb 20 23:18:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KCHvw12766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:17:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1KCHnH12761 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:17:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1KC8JH22668 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:08:19 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020220113115.00a73270@pop.ulb.ac.be> If declarer draws precisely enough trumps to determine whether the split is "easily managed" and then claims without a statement he will have no real problem convincing me that he was aware of an outstanding trump (or trumps). I will advise him to accompany such claims with the word "drawing" in future. 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 Feb 21 03:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KGDt924061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1KGDZH24015 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dZDl-0004Ha-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:04:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:05:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle 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 > >> >Okay. It was just a suggestion. We seemed to be heading in >> the direction of "how >> >should we change this law". >> This Law works pretty well, and most TDs seem to understand it - or >> think they do. I am not convinced that because BLML cannot >> agree on one >> or two things around this Law that apply to a small minority of cases >> that we should necessarily change the Law. >Happy you say so. Otherwise we had to change our laws every week twice. What >do you mean with 'one or two things'? I hope you count your trumps better. I think the term "one or two" in English encompasses any small number, eg five! As far as claims are concerned, let me see what BLML does not agree on: Whether odd items matter Whether irrational is easy to use as a concept Whether we should lay down particular guidelines for claims If yes, what those guidelines are How a precedent should be used I suppose there are a few other trivia. -- 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 Feb 21 03:15:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KGE0a24073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:14:00 +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-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 g1KGDbH24025 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dZDl-0004HZ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:04:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:01:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <004b01c1b9f3$fc3f8fa0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <004b01c1b9f3$fc3f8fa0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "David Stevenson" > >> we have not got a major problem with the existing Law. The only real >> problem with the Claims Law is the one we all know and confidently >> expect to be sorted with the next Law book, namely claims with >> unestablished revokes: even there the guidance from the WBFLC has made >> life simpler. > >Huh? What is the trouble with that? (Law63A3) > >Or do you see a problem with a claim immediately following an unestablished >revoke by opponents? Is the problem: They have the right to correct the >revoke, and then what about the claim? > >If a revoke has misled the subsequent claimer in any way, I would as TD >give him the benefit of any doubt that could be caused by this revoke, and I >feel that Laws 47 D&E give me the foundation for doing that (considering >for this purpose the claim statement equivalent to a play) > >Burdens TD with a lot more judgement, but I think that is inevitable in such >cases of "what if". > >Or have I completely misunderstood something? Apparently so. If you follow the written Law then you give the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, not the claimer, and there are obvious problems with that. I am not worried about TD's having to judge matters, but not following the Law book is more tricky. Fortunately the WBFLC has given guidance that suggests you give the benefit of the doubt to the claimer, not as the Law suggests. There are other problems in all this, which have led to something like twenty or so different threads here. Still, if you see no problem, I should not worry too much! -- 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 Feb 21 03:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KGDtq24063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1KGDZH24014 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dZDl-0004Hb-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:04:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:12:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The real danger of harsh claim laws (was, Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215110653.00a32e90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <005201c1b654$e2302a40$0200a8c0@David> In-Reply-To: <005201c1b654$e2302a40$0200a8c0@David> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Barton writes >> >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule >> >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: >> >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case >> > by case basis. >You may be out on a limb by voting for 2 but I am right there with you. > >In fact I believe that the phrase "adjudicates the result of the board as >equitably as possible to BOTH sides" can only be achieved by using >method 2. How stuffing claimer with the worst result possible squares >with this objective, I am at a loss to understand. L70A says: 'In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer.' The trouble with method 2 is that it tends to ignore the last phrase. -- 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 Feb 21 03:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KGE1Q24077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:14:01 +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-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 g1KGDaH24018 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dZDl-0004HY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:04:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:57:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle - Law74? References: <20020207175501-r01010800-563563c8-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <5rqEoHGZipc8Ew8S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003b01c1b9f1$3883c060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <003b01c1b9f1$3883c060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "David Stevenson" >.....(snip) >> I wonder why we see this Preface so much here. Are we not trying to >> run a game of bridge? >> >> If sloppy claims are prevalent enough to prevent the average players >> enjoyment of the came, then the TD should use his authority and L90 to >> deal with it, not worrying about general principles. Perhaps the next >> Law book should start its preface with the words: >> >> "Bridge is a game to be enjoyed by the people playing it while playing >> as fairly as possible, and nothing in this book should be read as >> suggesting otherwise." > >I consider law74 the most important law in the entire book. >Isn't this law just about exactly what you say, only we find >it towards the end of the book rather than at the beginning? Maybe so. But people do not think of it as the over-riding principle of the Laws, so I want to see it in the Scope. -- 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 Feb 21 03:15:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KGE1E24078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:14:01 +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-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 g1KGDhH24046 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:13:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16dZDm-0004Hc-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:04:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:15:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <01C1AD03.0CAA9EA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes >Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >>Spades are trumps. >>Declarer (a good player) claims the last 3 tricks holding a trump and 2 winning >>Diamonds. >>She says "I have the rest, the Diamonds are winners". >> >>The defenders have a master trump. >>Declarer admits to having forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >>If the TD makes her play her trump now she loses the last 3 tricks. >>If the TD allows her play a Diamond now she only loses 1 trick. >> >>The TD rules that she loses the last 3 tricks. >>Correct? > Having been away, I have read this thread at one go, and while I have >commented as I read on a few peripheral matters, I have not commented on >the basics. So I have decided to write one post to try to cover them. > > The Law says we give the defence three tricks if the play is not >irrational. It also defines normal to include careless and inferior, >and we include better plays than that. It is obvious to a lot of us >that the Law defines two classes of play: normal and irrational. Anyone >who wishes to object to this, feel free, but you are not running a game: >you are arguing semantics. > > How do I rule in the example? Three tricks to the defence probably: >some of the comments at the table could make me change my mind. It is >fairly close, and the case is not a very interesting one. Having considered overnight, I think I have explained this badly. The way we rule in this example is a matter of judgement in my view, because the Law is clear: that is why it is not very interesting. -- 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 Feb 21 05:11:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KIAU511572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:10:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1KIA2H11523 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:10:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KI0Uk06805; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:00:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020220114531.00a44ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:01:59 -0600 To: David Stevenson From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: The real danger of harsh claim laws (was, Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <005201c1b654$e2302a40$0200a8c0@David> <5.1.0.14.1.20020215110653.00a32e90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <005201c1b654$e2302a40$0200a8c0@David> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:12 PM 2/20/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >David Barton writes > >> >I think we really need a policy decision on how we _want_ to rule > >> >claims. As I see it, there are three approaches: > > >> >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > >> > by case basis. > > >You may be out on a limb by voting for 2 but I am right there with you. > > > >In fact I believe that the phrase "adjudicates the result of the board as > >equitably as possible to BOTH sides" can only be achieved by using > >method 2. How stuffing claimer with the worst result possible squares > >with this objective, I am at a loss to understand. > > L70A says: 'In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates >the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any >doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer.' > > The trouble with method 2 is that it tends to ignore the last phrase. Just by way of clarification, not argument: I intended the wording of method 2 as shorthand, as the purpose was to contrast it with the other two methods. I did not intend to imply that the TD/AC could not evaluate close calls against claimer. [Indeed, I have claimed that I probably would have dissented from the Tenerife decision, although I can't say for sure since I wasn't there.] The main question is whether we should nail all failed claimers to the wall, or whether we should have fairly mechanical guidelines to cover virtually all cases, or whether we should judge cases individually with an eye to producing something like the result that would have occurred had the hand been played out. While the wall-nailing strategy does indeed guarantee that doubtful results will be judged against the claimer, David Barton and I think it cannot square with the main clause, and hence implementing it would require a law change, IMHO. Nothing in either of the other two approaches would either proclude or entail giving the benefit of any doubt to non-claimers...the only difference is how mechanical our rulings will be. I think my approach is more consistent with the laws as written, and therefore would require less change in the law. [Indeed it requires none, although I would prefer the word "equity" be more clearly defined regardless.] >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 Thu Feb 21 09:33:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KMWVd10356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:32:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KMWKH10340 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:32:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-118.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.118]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3982CA4A6 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:22:43 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:18:57 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3C7368A1.1040406@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael writes: >Ted, maybe Nasa can send you to the moon or mars, and you >ruling will be accepted there, but certainly not on Earth: > >Surely you don't mean that you consider it "at all likely" >that claimer has forgotten about the 13th trump ? >You really should look at claims in context. If someone >draws a few rounds of trumps, and then stops, you can find >it "likely" that he has forgotten. But when someone claims >after the lead, they are always believed. Not by me! What this answer (and others) seems to overlook is the possibility that declarer simply miscounted trumps and thought that the offense held all 13 trumps. Since "everyone" knows that they must mention drawing trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a distinct possibility that he hadn't realised one was out. To me, this is a doubtful point which must "be resolved against the claimer" (L70A). All the conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick. If this makes me a hawk, so be it. If declarer knew about, and intended to draw, the outstanding trump then as DWS would say "He'll know better next time, won't he?" Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 21 10:10:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1KNAPa17319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:10:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KNAFH17300 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:10:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id x.175.3df0b7a (4539); Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:59:56 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <175.3df0b7a.29a5846c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:59:56 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps To: bramble@ukonline.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_175.3df0b7a.29a5846c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_175.3df0b7a.29a5846c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/02 5:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, bramble@ukonline.co.uk writes: > Not by me! What this answer (and others) seems to overlook is the > possibility that declarer simply miscounted trumps and thought that the > offense held all 13 trumps. Since "everyone" knows that they must mention > drawing trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a distinct > possibility that he hadn't realised one was out. To me, this is a > doubtful > point which must "be resolved against the claimer" (L70A). All the > conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick. If this > makes me a hawk, so be it. > > I happen to be one of the "everyone" but who thinks your statement is not correct. They don't "MUST" do anything. The Law treats with when they "...failed to..." "...failed to mention..." and "...could lose a trick..." taken together. Please read the words "and" at the end of 1 and 2 in the Law. When you take all three conditions together, as the law tells you to, your position is not as concrete as you seem to think it is, even in the use of language. 1. does not stand alone, but is greatly MODIFIED by 2, and 3. Besides, I don't think we need either hawks or doves as TDs. Dedicated individuals striving to do their best is better. 'Specially when they are amenable to listening to, and maybe even learning from, others. But not, of course, from me -- ask Vitold he'll tell you the "straight skinny" (American derogatory reference as used here) on me. Have a nice day, Kojak --part1_175.3df0b7a.29a5846c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/02 5:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, bramble@ukonline.co.uk writes:


Not by me!   What this answer (and others) seems to overlook is the
possibility that declarer simply miscounted trumps and thought that the
offense held all 13 trumps.   Since "everyone" knows that they must mention
drawing trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a distinct
possibility that he hadn't realised one was out.   To me, this is a doubtful
point which must "be resolved against the claimer" (L70A).   All the
conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick.   If this
makes me a hawk, so be it.


I happen to be one of the "everyone" but who thinks your statement is not correct. They don't "MUST" do anything.  The Law treats with when they "...failed to..." "...failed to mention..." and "...could lose a trick..." taken together. Please read the words "and" at the end of 1 and 2 in the Law.  When you take all three conditions together, as the law tells you to, your position is not as concrete as you seem to think it is, even in the use of language.  1. does not stand alone, but is greatly MODIFIED by 2, and 3.

Besides, I don't think we need either hawks or doves as TDs. Dedicated individuals striving to do their best is better.  'Specially when they are amenable to listening to, and maybe even learning from, others. But not, of course, from me -- ask Vitold he'll tell you the "straight skinny" (American derogatory reference as used here) on me.

Have a nice day,

Kojak
--part1_175.3df0b7a.29a5846c_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 21 19:05:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1L83xm00585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:04:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g1L83oH00557 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:03:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.52.118] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16do3V-000GOA-00; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:54:18 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c1baad$606c3fa0$7634e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <175.3df0b7a.29a5846c@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:56:30 -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: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps > In a message dated 2/20/02 5:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bramble@ukonline.co.uk writes: > > > > Not by me! What this answer (and others) seems to > > overlook is the possibility that declarer simply miscounted > > trumps and thought that the offense held all 13 trumps. > > Since "everyone" knows that they must mention drawing > > trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a > > distinct possibility that he hadn't realised one was out. > > To me, this is a doubtful point which must "be resolved > > against the claimer" (L70A). All the conditions of L70C > > are now met and the NOS receive one trick. If this > > makes me a hawk, so be it. > > > > > I happen to be one of the "everyone" but who thinks your > statement is not correct. They don't "MUST" do anything. > The Law treats with when they "...failed to..." "...failed to > mention..." and "...could lose a trick..." taken together. Please > read the words "and" at the end of 1 and 2 in the Law. > When you take all three conditions together, as the law tells > you to, your position is not as concrete as you seem to think > it is, even in the use of language. 1. does not stand alone, > but is greatly MODIFIED by 2, and 3. > > Besides, I don't think we need either hawks or doves as > TDs. Dedicated individuals striving to do their best is better. > 'Specially when they are amenable to listening to, and maybe > even learning from, others. But not, of course, from me -- ask > Vitold he'll tell you the "straight skinny" (American derogatory > reference as used here) on me. > > Have a nice day, > > Kojak > +=+ 'Straight' applies to you in all things, K, but 'skinny'? I wouldn't have thought of that. The world of bridge is served by some wonderfully dedicated people and this list should remind us of that. If the dedicated do not always see eye to eye, let us listen even if we fail to learn. I agree with what Kojak has written about the word 'and'; its effect does mean that the Director must believe all the conditions of 70C1, 2 and 3, must be present before the Director awards opponents a trick. And we are in the hands of the Director here; he judges the evidence and applies the law. I have been musing on the following WBFLC minute which I quote without comment:"The Committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see." ~ 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 Feb 21 21:19:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LAIrP22634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:18:53 +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 ([210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1LAIiH22617 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:18:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13657 invoked by uid 504); 21 Feb 2002 10:01:30 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.680585 secs); 21 Feb 2002 10:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.199) by 0 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 10:01:29 -0000 Message-ID: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:07:30 +1300 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 How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 21 22:10:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LB8F801823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:08:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LB86H01804 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:08:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1LAwVn03978; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:58:31 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1LAwU813598; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:58:31 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:58:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Wayne Burrows cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Hi > > How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? Do pairs > that have played that pair retain their score? Do pairs that have not > played that pair get an average? I'd simply score this as a regular sit-out, with everybody getting a percentage score over the boards they played. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 21 23:31:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LCUeO16599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:30:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net ([194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LCUVH16581 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:30:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-89.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.89]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 59A6976EF1 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:10:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:06:46 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <175.3df0b7a.29a5846c@aol.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Schoderb@aol.com writes: > The Law treats with when they "...failed to..." "...failed to mention..." > and "...could lose a trick..." taken together. Please read the words > "and" at the end of 1 and 2 in the Law. When you take all three > conditions together, as the law tells you to, your position is not as > concrete as you seem to think it is, even in the use of language. > 1. does not stand alone, but is greatly MODIFIED by 2, and 3. My statement was "All the conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick." Why on earth should it be inferred from this that I thought any of 1, 2 & 3 in L70C stood alone? We are told that 1 applies and if declarer has overlooked a trump it is also clear that 3 applies. Only 2 is in question, i.e is it "at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand"? Herman says "But when someone claims after the lead, they are always believed". I see no authority for this. Claimer's failure to mention trumps is consistent with the possibility that he thought the offense held all 13 trumps and IMO this satisfies the "at all likely" requirement in 2. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 21 23:52:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LCqFs19955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:52:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LCq5H19929 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:52:06 +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 g1LCgWc10052 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:42:32 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 21 13:39:12 2002 +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 <01KEJDGUXXH2000QPQ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:41:39 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:41:25 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps To: "'Brambledown'" , BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Herman says "But when someone claims after the lead, they are always > believed". I see no authority for this. Claimer's failure > to mention > trumps is consistent with the possibility that he thought the > offense held > all 13 trumps or that he was playing in NT. Do we remain considering this group as a serious forum for discussions? ton and IMO this satisfies the "at all likely" > requirement in 2. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 01:27:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LERKY08211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:27:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LERAH08194 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:27:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1LEHXt22463; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:33 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:33 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1LEHXK22854; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:33 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:33 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 OAA07759; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:33 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA20201; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:32 GMT Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:17:32 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202211417.OAA20201@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, cascade@infogen.net.nz Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi > > How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > > Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > > Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? > > Wayne Burrows > 10 Glen Place > Palmerston North > New Zealand > Where the EBU is the SO, the regulation is that if they withdraw before they have played half the boards, all the boards they played are cancelled; if they have played half the boards, those boards count and the rest are scores as 60-40. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 02:11:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LFAxj16817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:10:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LFApH16799 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:10:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16duim-0003vx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:01:20 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020221092406.00af2940@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:02:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In some jurisdictions, notably the ACBL, it is illegal to have any partnership agreement with regard to psyching. They (the ACBL) have held in the past that if a player is aware that his partner tends to psych in a particular situation, this consitutes an implicit agreement, and is therefore illegal. But that is rather hard to operationalize, leading to a jurisprudence which tends to be overly restrictive -- as with the ACBL's notorious (if slightly exaggerated) "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule -- and/or requires (in the absense of an inevitably unknown "partnership history") "mind reading" on the part of the adjudicators. Some in this forum have criticized this general approach, and have suggested that the only sensible basis for a finding that a psych may have been "protected" by an implicit agreement is the possibility that it has been "fielded", i.e. that the partner of the psycher, faced with a choice of calls, has taken an action which would have been made more attractive (relative to its "logical alternatives") by a presumptive awareness that partner may have been psyching. It is my impression that this has been a minority position. Now, however, the ACBL has officially reversed its prior position and adopted this view. In "Ruling the Game" (February 2002), a monthly column in the ACBL's "Bridge Bulletin" devoted to answering questions about ACBL policies with regard to Laws and rulings, a reader asks about a case of damage resulting from a psych. Mike Flader replies (complete, verbatim, italics the author's): "Yes, it is a psych. No adjustment should be made, however, unless the psycher's partner bids as though he expected it. If the psycher's partner bids as though he expected the psych, that should be taken as evidence of an undisclosed agreement as to the meaning of the call. If the director judges the other side to be damaged as a result of *that*, he may adjust the score. Otherwise, the result has to stand regardless of damage." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 22 02:37:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LFa9L21331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:36:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LFa0H21311 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:36:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d470.iae.nl [212.61.5.216]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 76C9B210BF for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:26:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <009501c1baeb$f7bca1e0$40033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200202211417.OAA20201@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:52:52 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We are advised to combine Robin's solution with the one of Henk. 60-40 is too much of a good thing. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: ; Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > > Hi > > > > How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > > > > Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > > > > Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? > > > > Wayne Burrows > > 10 Glen Place > > Palmerston North > > New Zealand > > > Where the EBU is the SO, the regulation is that if they withdraw > before they have played half the boards, all the boards they > played are cancelled; if they have played half the boards, > those boards count and the rest are scores as 60-40. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 02:42:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LFgTI22511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:42:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LFgJH22490 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:42:19 +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 g1LFWlc05395 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:32:47 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 21 16:29:24 2002 +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 <01KEJJFI1YP6000QXE@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:32:22 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:32:07 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:32:15 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching 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 > > > In some jurisdictions, notably the ACBL, it is illegal to have any > partnership agreement with regard to psyching. They (the ACBL) have > held in the past that if a player is aware that his partner tends to > psych in a particular situation, this consitutes an implicit > agreement, > and is therefore illegal. But that is rather hard to operationalize, > leading to a jurisprudence which tends to be overly restrictive -- as > with the ACBL's notorious (if slightly exaggerated) "one psych per > partnership per lifetime" rule -- and/or requires (in the > absense of an > inevitably unknown "partnership history") "mind reading" on > the part of > the adjudicators. > > Some in this forum have criticized this general approach, and have > suggested that the only sensible basis for a finding that a psych may > have been "protected" by an implicit agreement is the > possibility that > it has been "fielded", i.e. that the partner of the psycher, > faced with > a choice of calls, has taken an action which would have been > made more > attractive (relative to its "logical alternatives") by a presumptive > awareness that partner may have been psyching. It is my impression > that this has been a minority position. > > Now, however, the ACBL has officially reversed its prior position and > adopted this view. In "Ruling the Game" (February 2002), a monthly > column in the ACBL's "Bridge Bulletin" devoted to answering questions > about ACBL policies with regard to Laws and rulings, a reader asks > about a case of damage resulting from a psych. Mike Flader replies > (complete, verbatim, italics the author's): > > "Yes, it is a psych. No adjustment should be made, however, > unless the > psycher's partner bids as though he expected it. If the psycher's > partner bids as though he expected the psych, that should be taken as > evidence of an undisclosed agreement as to the meaning of the > call. If > the director judges the other side to be damaged as a result > of *that*, > he may adjust the score. Otherwise, the result has to stand > regardless > of damage." That seems too restrictive to me. For some reason we always seem to focus on the question whether partner acts as if he knows about the psyche. But that is not the only consideration. Partner might know about the psyche, as a partnership understanding, without ever basing his call on that knowledge. So yes: anticipating on the psyche could be held as knowing about it, but not anticipating not necessarily means that partner doesn't know about it. And if he does it creates an infraction. Then the opponents are entitled to know about it as well. Furthermore we do remember cases in which every player at the table knows about the psyche, drawing inferences from the continuation or just counting high card points. That should have been mentioned as an exception too. ton > > Eric Landau -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 02:47:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LFkpd23034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:46:51 +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-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 g1LFkfH23012 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:46:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.54.158] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16dvHS-000K9R-00; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:37:10 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c1baed$8bb51340$9e36e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:32:15 -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: "BLML" Sent: 21 February 2002 12:06 Subject: RE: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps > > We are told that 1 applies and if declarer has overlooked a trump it is also > clear that 3 applies. Only 2 is in question, i.e is it "at all likely that > claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an > opponent's hand"? > +=+ Hi Chas (and onlookers), Of course you are entitled to your opinion. That some of us believe it will prove to be a minority opinion does not invalidate it - although in the nature of things I would think that should the situation ever arise the odds would be strongly against the TD following your guidance. It does not seem to have featured in your thinking that claimant may have assumed his opponents are sufficiently bridge players to recognize that he cannot fail to pick up the missing card - and will be sufficiently high-minded not to nit-pick about it. If this generous spirit were not volunteered I would expect the Director to induce it by taking the view when ruling that 70C2 is not satisfied. Additionally I would regard it as highly abnormal not to play a top trump from one hand or the other. ~ 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 Feb 22 03:21:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LGKk828104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:20:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LGKbH28082 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:20:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA12112 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:10:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge" Subject: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:17:38 -0800 Message-ID: <021601c1bb0c$6cb6b740$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Now, however, the ACBL has officially reversed its prior position and >adopted this view. In "Ruling the Game" (February 2002), a monthly >column in the ACBL's "Bridge Bulletin" devoted to answering questions >about ACBL policies with regard to Laws and rulings, a reader asks >about a case of damage resulting from a psych. Mike Flader replies >(complete, verbatim, italics the author's): One quick question: In the past, there has been some question regarding whether information posted in the Bulletin represents "official" ACBL policy. Does anyone know the status of the "Ruling the Game" column? Is this official policy or just Mike Flader's opinion? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 04:43:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LHh5210079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:43:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LHguH10060 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:42:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75570.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.50]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1LHXMc27978 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:33:22 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:33:49 +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: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk OK, Bramble, what a bout a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without mentioning anything. Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that claimer miscounted them ? I really have no doubt in cases like these, so there is no need to resolve doubtful points. Brambledown wrote: >>Herman De Wael writes: >> > >>Ted, maybe Nasa can send you to the moon or mars, and you >>ruling will be accepted there, but certainly not on Earth: >> >>Surely you don't mean that you consider it "at all likely" >>that claimer has forgotten about the 13th trump ? >>You really should look at claims in context. If someone >>draws a few rounds of trumps, and then stops, you can find >>it "likely" that he has forgotten. But when someone claims >>after the lead, they are always believed. >> > > Not by me! What this answer (and others) seems to overlook is the > possibility that declarer simply miscounted trumps and thought that the > offense held all 13 trumps. Since "everyone" knows that they must mention > drawing trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a distinct > possibility that he hadn't realised one was out. To me, this is a doubtful > point which must "be resolved against the claimer" (L70A). All the > conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick. If this > makes me a hawk, so be it. > > If declarer knew about, and intended to draw, the outstanding trump then as > DWS would say "He'll know better next time, won't he?" > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 22 04:47:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LHlIs10901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:47:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LHl9H10874 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:47:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75570.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.50]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1LHbYc02533 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:37:34 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:38:01 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@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: > Hi > > How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > > Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > Yes, I believe that is the right thing to do. > Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? > No, I consider that like a bye. I have a personal rule never to give Av+ on more than 2 consecutive boards. > Wayne Burrows > 10 Glen Place > Palmerston North > New Zealand > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > Phone 0064 6 3551259 > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 22 04:58:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LHvsk12116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LHvjH12094 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:57:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0159.bb.online.no [80.212.208.159]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA08501; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:48:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003901c1baff$eab8f020$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:48:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let us cut this short shall we? I think all of us will agree from practical experience that if a player holds 10 trumps to AKQJ he has hardly forgotten 3 outstanding trumps. On the other hand if there is only one outstanding trump, and in particular if declarer has drawn all except that last outstanding trump during the play, it is more than likely he could(!) have forgotten that trump. And if he "forgets" to mention that final outstanding trump with a claim ? ? ? Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps > OK, Bramble, > what a bout a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without > mentioning anything. > Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that > claimer miscounted them ? > I really have no doubt in cases like these, so there is no > need to resolve doubtful points. > > Brambledown wrote: > > >>Herman De Wael writes: > >> > > > >>Ted, maybe Nasa can send you to the moon or mars, and you > >>ruling will be accepted there, but certainly not on Earth: > >> > >>Surely you don't mean that you consider it "at all likely" > >>that claimer has forgotten about the 13th trump ? > >>You really should look at claims in context. If someone > >>draws a few rounds of trumps, and then stops, you can find > >>it "likely" that he has forgotten. But when someone claims > >>after the lead, they are always believed. > >> > > > > Not by me! What this answer (and others) seems to overlook is the > > possibility that declarer simply miscounted trumps and thought that the > > offense held all 13 trumps. Since "everyone" knows that they must mention > > drawing trumps, ISTM that declarer's failure to do so makes it a distinct > > possibility that he hadn't realised one was out. To me, this is a doubtful > > point which must "be resolved against the claimer" (L70A). All the > > conditions of L70C are now met and the NOS receive one trick. If this > > makes me a hawk, so be it. > > > > If declarer knew about, and intended to draw, the outstanding trump then as > > DWS would say "He'll know better next time, won't he?" > > > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > > > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 05:22:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LILYA15970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:21:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LILPH15947 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:21:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0836.bb.online.no [80.212.211.68]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA26865; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:11:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:11:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is not a matter of law, it is a matter of regulations, and what regulations are in force in your case? I looked up the "default" regulations for competitions in Norway and found that obtained results stand except: If a pair leaves a session after having played less than 2/3 of the rounds in that session and a replacement cannot be inserted they are considered to having left the tournament. If by that action they will have participated in less than half the total number of rounds in the tournament all their results obtained so far are stricken. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Hi > > > > How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > > > > Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > > > > > Yes, I believe that is the right thing to do. > > > > Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? > > > > > No, I consider that like a bye. > I have a personal rule never to give Av+ on more than 2 > consecutive boards. > > > > Wayne Burrows > > 10 Glen Place > > Palmerston North > > New Zealand > > > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > > > Phone 0064 6 3551259 > > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Feb 22 07:07:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LK79x07015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:07:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LK71H06982 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:07:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16dzLN-0005Qc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:57:29 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020221144630.00af5780@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:58:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching In-Reply-To: <021601c1bb0c$6cb6b740$7d04e080@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 2/21/02, Richard wrote: >One quick question: >In the past, there has been some question regarding whether information >posted in the Bulletin represents "official" ACBL policy. > >Does anyone know the status of the "Ruling the Game" column? Is this >official policy or just Mike Flader's opinion? I don't think there can be any doubt about its official status. Questions for the column are taken by e-mail to rulings@acbl.org, which is listed (p. 4 of the same issue) as the address for official inquiries to the ACBL about rulings. One also notes that it generally appears in immediate proximity to another column, Ron Gerard's "Appeals: A New View", which the ACBL has said, explicitly, represents Mr. Gerard's own, unofficial viewpoint, creating at least an implicit contrast between the columns. The bottom line, though, is that, given the standard intro to the column ("If you have questions relating to the Laws of the game or a ruling...") and the fact that it appears without any hint of disclaimer in the Bulletin ("the official publication of the American Contract Bridge League", according to its masthead), whether or not the ACBL would confirm it to be "officially official" it is sure to be taken that way throughout the ACBL, by TDs and AC members along with everyone else. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 22 09:20:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LMJkd00458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:19:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LMJaH00431 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:19:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75570.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.50]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1LMA3c15487 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:10:03 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C757055.5070803@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:10:29 +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] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps References: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> <003901c1baff$eab8f020$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > Let us cut this short shall we? > I think all of us will agree from practical experience > that if a player holds 10 trumps to AKQJ he has hardly > forgotten 3 outstanding trumps. > > On the other hand if there is only one outstanding trump, > and in particular if declarer has drawn all except that last > outstanding trump during the play, it is more than likely > he could(!) have forgotten that trump. And if he "forgets" > to mention that final outstanding trump with a claim ? ? ? > I agree - but the example I gave was with 12 trumps, and a claim immediately after the lead. Surely that falls more into the category of "not drawing trumps at all - yet realizing there are 13 of them" than in the category of "failing to draw the last trump". > -- 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 Feb 22 09:22:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LMMnw00873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:22:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LMMfH00855 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:22:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75570.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.50]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1LMCwc18611 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:12:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:13:25 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Great. I see GB and NO have mentioned this case in regulations. Any others ? But Wayne asked for a general opinion, about what to do if there are no regulations, or of how to write regulations. I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained results for no reason other than something unrelated that happened afterwards. Sven Pran wrote: > This is not a matter of law, it is a matter of regulations, > and what regulations are in force in your case? > > I looked up the "default" regulations for competitions in > Norway and found that obtained results stand except: > > If a pair leaves a session after having played less than > 2/3 of the rounds in that session and a replacement > cannot be inserted they are considered to having left > the tournament. If by that action they will have > participated in less than half the total number of > rounds in the tournament all their results obtained so > far are stricken. > > Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:38 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > > >>Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >>>Hi >>> >>>How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? >>> >>>Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? >>> >>> >> >>Yes, I believe that is the right thing to do. >> >> >> >>>Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? >>> >>> >> >>No, I consider that like a bye. >>I have a personal rule never to give Av+ on more than 2 >>consecutive boards. >> >> >> >>>Wayne Burrows >>>10 Glen Place >>>Palmerston North >>>New Zealand >>> >>>mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz >>> >>>Phone 0064 6 3551259 >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>======================================================================== >>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ >> >> >> > > > -- 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 Feb 22 09:53:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LMrXW05750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:53:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1LMrOH05732 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:53:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2085 invoked by uid 0); 21 Feb 2002 22:43:46 -0000 Received: from pd954c20c.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.194.12) by mail.gmx.net (mp005-rz3) with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 22:43:46 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:40:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Message-ID: <3C75858A.31007.34AF2E1@localhost> In-reply-to: <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 21 Feb 2002 at 23:13, Herman De Wael wrote: > I see GB and NO have mentioned this case in regulations. > Any others ? Germany: If one third of the boards or one session was played by the missing pair the scores will not be scratched. The pairs that were unable to play against the missing pair will get avg+ (60%) or their average result depending of what is better. ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 10:26:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LNPfL11655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:25:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LNPVH11624 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:25:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2952.bb.online.no [80.212.219.136]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA29684; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:15:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000701c1bb2d$a9bf6620$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> <003901c1baff$eab8f020$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757055.5070803@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:15:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Let us cut this short shall we? > > I think all of us will agree from practical experience > > that if a player holds 10 trumps to AKQJ he has hardly > > forgotten 3 outstanding trumps. > > > > On the other hand if there is only one outstanding trump, > > and in particular if declarer has drawn all except that last > > outstanding trump during the play, it is more than likely > > he could(!) have forgotten that trump. And if he "forgets" > > to mention that final outstanding trump with a claim ? ? ? > > > > > I agree - but the example I gave was with 12 trumps, and a > claim immediately after the lead. > Surely that falls more into the category of "not drawing > trumps at all - yet realizing there are 13 of them" than in > the category of "failing to draw the last trump". > And the question TD must evaluate is obviously: How likely is it that he could(!) have miscounted the trumps? I still consider it negligent by a claimer not to somehow make it clear that he is aware of essential outstanding cards, and trump(s) in particular. It doesn't cost him any time and only causes doubt. 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 Feb 22 10:32:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1LNW6X12838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:32:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LNVvH12809 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:31:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3010.bb.online.no [80.212.219.194]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA13951; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:22:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:22:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > results for no reason other than something unrelated that > happened afterwards. Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching the results obtained against a pair that has only played a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. Where to draw the line is a matter of policy. 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 Feb 22 11:01:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M01LX18565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:01:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M01CH18547 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:01:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF7C3W; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:51:40 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221184917.00aa0a70@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:51:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps In-Reply-To: <3C757055.5070803@village.uunet.be> References: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> <003901c1baff$eab8f020$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Perhaps he counted 12 trumps, but he could have counted 13 (even though there were only 12). Seems to me he should specify "drawing the trump". Walt Flory At 11:10 PM 2/21/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>Let us cut this short shall we? >>I think all of us will agree from practical experience >>that if a player holds 10 trumps to AKQJ he has hardly >>forgotten 3 outstanding trumps. >>On the other hand if there is only one outstanding trump, >>and in particular if declarer has drawn all except that last >>outstanding trump during the play, it is more than likely >>he could(!) have forgotten that trump. And if he "forgets" >>to mention that final outstanding trump with a claim ? ? ? > > >I agree - but the example I gave was with 12 trumps, and a claim >immediately after the lead. >Surely that falls more into the category of "not drawing trumps at all - >yet realizing there are 13 of them" than in the category of "failing to >draw the last trump". > > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 13:04:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M24Dn11196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:04:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g1M244H11164 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:04:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16e4ur-0009nT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:54:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:50:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 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 g1M246H11172 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > >Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > >Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? This is a matter of regulation, so various methods are legal. According to the EBU's White Book: ================================================================ 80.25.4 Not all play all – withdrawal part way through a session All scores obtained against the withdrawn contestant stand. Any contestant required to ‘sit out’ as a result of the withdrawal receives, in a standard pairs contest, 60% per board not played or session average, whichever is higher. ================================================================ So in EBU events they keep their score, and pairs that have not played them get an average-plus. -- 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 Feb 22 13:33:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M2XCg15477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:33:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1M2X3H15460 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:33:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 25882 invoked by uid 504); 22 Feb 2002 02:15:44 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.09704 secs); 22 Feb 2002 02:15:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.182) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2002 02:15:43 -0000 Message-ID: <00c001c1bb47$ae0f6080$c716b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:21:45 +1300 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: Sven Pran To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > > I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > > results for no reason other than something unrelated that > > happened afterwards. > > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching > the results obtained against a pair that has only played > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. Whoops I replied this before but not to the list. In this case that inspired this post a pair got nearly 100% against a pair that later withdrew. Where is the equity in eliminating their score. > > Where to draw the line is a matter of policy. > > Sven > > 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 Feb 22 13:33:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M2XgC15585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:33:42 +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 g1M2XUH15539 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:33:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1M2NtM14533 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:23:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:18:17 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020221212400-r01010800-ddbd3b9c-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 2/21/02 at 2:58 PM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > The bottom line, though, is that, given the standard intro to the > column ("If you have questions relating to the Laws of the game or a > ruling...") and the fact that it appears without any hint of disclaimer > in the Bulletin ("the official publication of the American Contract > Bridge League", according to its masthead), whether or not the ACBL > would confirm it to be "officially official" it is sure to be taken > that way throughout the ACBL, by TDs and AC members along with everyone > else. Here's another piece of evidence: in Larry Harris' _Bridge Director's Companion_, the section on laws and rulings makes reference to the laws, to _Duplicate Decisions_ (a handbook for club directors) and to "Ruling the Game" as sources for the requirements he states for rulings. IMNSHO, if "Ruling the Game" is to be a source of official policy, than all the columns (or at least, all the ones that haven't been made obsolete by changes in the laws or regulations) ought to be posted on the ACBL website, or otherwise made available to players. So far as I know, that's not the case. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Feb 22 15:11:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M4BFs03635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M4B3H03604 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.6]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRW00152YHBDY@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:48:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:20:40 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000501c1bb55$91cb0420$062928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation 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=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020221092406.00af2940@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sounds like we are coming back to something like the ghostly Law of Coincidence. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:02 AM Subject: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching | In some jurisdictions, notably the ACBL, it is illegal to have any | partnership agreement with regard to psyching. They (the ACBL) have | held in the past that if a player is aware that his partner tends to | psych in a particular situation, this consitutes an implicit agreement, | and is therefore illegal. But that is rather hard to operationalize, | leading to a jurisprudence which tends to be overly restrictive -- as | with the ACBL's notorious (if slightly exaggerated) "one psych per | partnership per lifetime" rule -- and/or requires (in the absense of an | inevitably unknown "partnership history") "mind reading" on the part of | the adjudicators. | | Some in this forum have criticized this general approach, and have | suggested that the only sensible basis for a finding that a psych may | have been "protected" by an implicit agreement is the possibility that | it has been "fielded", i.e. that the partner of the psycher, faced with | a choice of calls, has taken an action which would have been made more | attractive (relative to its "logical alternatives") by a presumptive | awareness that partner may have been psyching. It is my impression | that this has been a minority position. | | Now, however, the ACBL has officially reversed its prior position and | adopted this view. In "Ruling the Game" (February 2002), a monthly | column in the ACBL's "Bridge Bulletin" devoted to answering questions | about ACBL policies with regard to Laws and rulings, a reader asks | about a case of damage resulting from a psych. Mike Flader replies | (complete, verbatim, italics the author's): | | "Yes, it is a psych. No adjustment should be made, however, unless the | psycher's partner bids as though he expected it. If the psycher's | partner bids as though he expected the psych, that should be taken as | evidence of an undisclosed agreement as to the meaning of the call. If | the director judges the other side to be damaged as a result of *that*, | he may adjust the score. Otherwise, the result has to stand regardless | of damage." | | Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net | 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 | 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 Fri Feb 22 15:11:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M4BCL03625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M4B1H03592 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.6]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRW00152YHBDY@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:48:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:18:09 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: Wayne Burrows , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000401c1bb55$90d866c0$062928c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation 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=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would think that is greatly influenced by why the pair left the game. In most cases, the deals already played by them would stand and the remaining deals to be played by them are scored as not played. A lot of extra work if you are scoring by hand, no prob for the PC. >From the Tropics, John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:07 AM Subject: [BLML] Scoring Problem | Hi | | How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? | | Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? | | Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? | | Wayne Burrows | 10 Glen Place | Palmerston North | New Zealand | | mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz | | Phone 0064 6 3551259 | | | | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 22 19:39:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M8caQ23911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:38:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M8cRH23897 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:38:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1M8Slg21111 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:28:47 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C76015B.90603@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:29:15 +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] Scoring Problem References: <3C75858A.31007.34AF2E1@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk stefan filonardi wrote: > Hello, > > On 21 Feb 2002 at 23:13, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>I see GB and NO have mentioned this case in regulations. >>Any others ? >> > > Germany: > If one third of the boards or one session was played by the > missing pair the scores will not be scratched. > The pairs that were unable to play against the missing pair will > get avg+ (60%) or their average result depending of what is > better. > That too seems to me as an unfair regulation. When there is a bye - you don't get any score. But when a doctor is called away one hour before the end of the session, suddenly you receive 4 boards at 60% ? -- 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 Feb 22 19:42:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M8fuE24529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:41:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M8flH24510 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1M8W5g25121 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:32:05 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:32:34 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > >>I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained >>results for no reason other than something unrelated that >>happened afterwards. >> > > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching > the results obtained against a pair that has only played > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. > Don't say things like that with a loaded word like equity. Define equity. How equitable is it to see your 6Sp bid and made disappear together with the pair whom you played it against ? or your 6SpX-3 for that manner ? I realize that in the interest of fairness, everyone should play the same opponents. But in large fields that is totally impossible. So you have played 4 boards, against a pair that is presumed about average, and now your results are scratched, just because this pair played only 5 other opponents in stead of 7 ? I don't see what equity has to do with it. > Where to draw the line is a matter of policy. > > Sven > > > > -- 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 Feb 22 19:56:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M8uYh27075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:56:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M8uPH27057 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:56:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2727.bb.online.no [80.212.218.167]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00902; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:46:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <20020222010828.LSRM17500.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:46:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Wayne Burrows" ..... > > > I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > > > results for no reason other than something unrelated that > > > happened afterwards. > > > > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching > > the results obtained against a pair that has only played > > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. > > In the case that prompted me to write a pair scored nearly 100% > against the pair that later left. > > Where is the equity in taking that score from them? To all those pairs that otherwise receive a mere 60% compensation instead of their 100% score against the missing pair? The point is that unless the pair has played a certain minimum of the tournament you cannot tell whether 60% is a reasonable compensation for missing the chance against them. Was scoring (nearly) 100% against them luck, skill or typical? 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 Feb 22 20:01:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M91OW27663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:01:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M91FH27651 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:01:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M8pcn14052; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:51:38 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M8pcP27806; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:51:38 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:51:38 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > I see GB and NO have mentioned this case in regulations. > Any others ? The Dutch ones only deal with pairs that don't play every session of an event, not part of a session. And in that case, the results from the sessions that they played, stand. BTW. Didn't the WBF want to give AVE+ to the pairs that couldn't play part of the first session in Lille 1998, due to a screw-up in the movement, until, as Larry Cohen wrote in TBW, sanity prevailed. Henk > But Wayne asked for a general opinion, about what to do if > there are no regulations, or of how to write regulations. > > I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > results for no reason other than something unrelated that > happened afterwards. > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > This is not a matter of law, it is a matter of regulations, > > and what regulations are in force in your case? > > > > I looked up the "default" regulations for competitions in > > Norway and found that obtained results stand except: > > > > If a pair leaves a session after having played less than > > 2/3 of the rounds in that session and a replacement > > cannot be inserted they are considered to having left > > the tournament. If by that action they will have > > participated in less than half the total number of > > rounds in the tournament all their results obtained so > > far are stricken. > > > > Sven > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:38 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > > > > > > >>Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi > >>> > >>>How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? > >>> > >>>Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Yes, I believe that is the right thing to do. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>No, I consider that like a bye. > >>I have a personal rule never to give Av+ on more than 2 > >>consecutive boards. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Wayne Burrows > >>>10 Glen Place > >>>Palmerston North > >>>New Zealand > >>> > >>>mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > >>> > >>>Phone 0064 6 3551259 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>======================================================================== > >>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 22 20:11:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M9B5P29454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:11:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M9AtH29430 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:10:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2929.bb.online.no [80.212.219.113]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA00555; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:01:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:01:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > > > >>I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > >>results for no reason other than something unrelated that > >>happened afterwards. > >> > > > > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching > > the results obtained against a pair that has only played > > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. > > > > > Don't say things like that with a loaded word like equity. > Define equity. "I can't define an elephant, but I know him when I see him" (Where is equity defined in the laws? See f.i. Law64C) > How equitable is it to see your 6Sp bid and made disappear > together with the pair whom you played it against ? > or your 6SpX-3 for that manner ? > I realize that in the interest of fairness, everyone should > play the same opponents. But in large fields that is totally > impossible. > So you have played 4 boards, against a pair that is presumed > about average, and now your results are scratched, just > because this pair played only 5 other opponents in stead of 7 ? > I don't see what equity has to do with it. If the disappearing pair has not played a certain minimum of the tournament how do you know whether the already obtained results against them were due to skill, luck or their current capability just at this tournament? How do you know that 60% compensation for not meeting them is reasonable? I am not arguing that our regulations here are correct, but there must certainly have been a reason behind them and if that reason is as I have tried to point out it seems well founded to me. As of this moment I believe there has been reports that at least three countries have similar regulations. 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 Feb 22 20:15:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1M9Epf00102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:14:51 +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 (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1M9EbH00052 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:14:38 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200202220914.g1M9EbH00052@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 5539 invoked by uid 504); 22 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.54. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.030613 secs); 22 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO infogen.net.nz) (127.0.0.1) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:57:16 -0000 To: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem From: X-Mailer: TWIG 2.6.2 In-Reply-To: <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran said: > From: "Wayne Burrows" > ..... > > > > I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained > > > > results for no reason other than something unrelated that > > > > happened afterwards. > > > > > > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching > > > the results obtained against a pair that has only played > > > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. > > > > In the case that prompted me to write a pair scored nearly 100% > > against the pair that later left. > > > > Where is the equity in taking that score from them? > > To all those pairs that otherwise receive a mere 60% compensation > instead of their 100% score against the missing pair? > > The point is that unless the pair has played a certain minimum > of the tournament you cannot tell whether 60% is a reasonable > compensation for missing the chance against them. > > Was scoring (nearly) 100% against them luck, skill or typical? > As always a combination of luck and skill. This pair rarely score 0% for a session so 100% was not typical. On this occasion there was more luck. In the two board round, one hand involved an error (misbid) and the other a reasonable slam. But this is all a legitimate part of bridge. > Sven 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 Feb 23 00:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MD1q829689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:01:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MD1hH29685 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:01:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1MCq8g18038 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:52:08 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C763F14.9050600@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:52:36 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > >> >>Don't say things like that with a loaded word like equity. >>Define equity. >> > > "I can't define an elephant, but I know him when I see him" > > (Where is equity defined in the laws? See f.i. Law64C) > Nowhere. Which is exactly why you can't use the word "equity" in your reply. You can say "I think it is equitable to scratch results", but you cannot say "It is right to scratch results BECAUSE it is equitable". That statement does not fly. > >>How equitable is it to see your 6Sp bid and made disappear >>together with the pair whom you played it against ? >>or your 6SpX-3 for that manner ? >>I realize that in the interest of fairness, everyone should >>play the same opponents. But in large fields that is totally >>impossible. >>So you have played 4 boards, against a pair that is presumed >>about average, and now your results are scratched, just >>because this pair played only 5 other opponents in stead of 7 ? >>I don't see what equity has to do with it. >> > > If the disappearing pair has not played a certain minimum of > the tournament how do you know whether the already obtained > results against them were due to skill, luck or their current > capability just at this tournament? How do you know that 60% > compensation for not meeting them is reasonable? > How do you know that it isn't ? Why do you presume that it is better to scratch results than to leave them in ? I can go along with scratching the results of a pair that leave the tournament due to total inability (having scored nothing but absolute bottoms) or of a pair that are disqualified for cheating (and having scored nothing but tops), but in all other cases why should one presume anything but "average" opponents, and your result depending on luck and skill just as much as with any board played against anyone. > I am not arguing that our regulations here are correct, but there > must certainly have been a reason behind them and if that reason > is as I have tried to point out it seems well founded to me. > Well, it does not to me. > As of this moment I believe there has been reports that at least > three countries have similar regulations. > > Sven > > > > -- 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 Feb 23 00:04:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MD4Ai29702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:04:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MD42H29698 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:04:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1MCsQg20654 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:54:26 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C763F9E.7020903@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:54:54 +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] Scoring Problem References: <20020222010828.LSRM17500.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1> <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Wayne Burrows" > ..... > >>>>I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained >>>>results for no reason other than something unrelated that >>>>happened afterwards. >>>> >>>Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching >>>the results obtained against a pair that has only played >>>a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. >>> >>In the case that prompted me to write a pair scored nearly 100% >>against the pair that later left. >> >>Where is the equity in taking that score from them? >> > > To all those pairs that otherwise receive a mere 60% compensation > instead of their 100% score against the missing pair? > > The point is that unless the pair has played a certain minimum > of the tournament you cannot tell whether 60% is a reasonable > compensation for missing the chance against them. > > Was scoring (nearly) 100% against them luck, skill or typical? > Good question. Luck - then you deserve to keep this skill - then you certainly deserve to keep this typical - have you ever seen a pair with a typical score of 0%?. I have not. But when it does happen, and they leave half way, I'm in favor of scratching the scores. But certainly not as a general rule. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 23 01:36:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MEaQr00414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:36:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MEaGH00378 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:36:16 +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 PAA29104; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:25:55 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA22072; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:26:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222152123.00a3e400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:30:03 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:13 21/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained results for no >reason other than something unrelated that happened afterwards. AG : 'fcourse. Imagine a team leaves a Swiss tournament two rounds before the end. Assume there are no possible replacements, and that when you realize they're away it's too late to set up a triplicate. Deleting their former results would cause much more unbalancing than according their presumptive opponents a bye, which according to CoC will range from 15 to 18. In pairs events, the absurdity of deleting results is less obvious, but results might, in some pathological cases, be skewed in the same way. Unless the pair departed quite early, their results should stand. One more thing : if you have to assess an artificial score, it should not be 60 / 40, as some said, but 60 / 0. Else, a pair could choose to walk away before the last round, which they have to play against strong opposition, and benefit of it. Best regards, Alain. >Sven Pran wrote: > >>This is not a matter of law, it is a matter of regulations, >>and what regulations are in force in your case? >>I looked up the "default" regulations for competitions in >>Norway and found that obtained results stand except: >>If a pair leaves a session after having played less than >>2/3 of the rounds in that session and a replacement >>cannot be inserted they are considered to having left >>the tournament. If by that action they will have >>participated in less than half the total number of >>rounds in the tournament all their results obtained so >>far are stricken. >>Sven >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Herman De Wael" >>To: "Bridge Laws" >>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:38 PM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >> >> >>>Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>>How do you score if a pair leaves the session part way through? >>>> >>>>Do pairs that have played that pair retain their score? >>>> >>> >>>Yes, I believe that is the right thing to do. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Do pairs that have not played that pair get an average? >>>> >>> >>>No, I consider that like a bye. >>>I have a personal rule never to give Av+ on more than 2 >>>consecutive boards. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Wayne Burrows >>>>10 Glen Place >>>>Palmerston North >>>>New Zealand >>>> >>>>mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz >>>> >>>>Phone 0064 6 3551259 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>======================================================================== >>>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ >>> >>> >> > > >-- >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 Feb 23 01:41:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MEexi01239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:40:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MEeoH01215 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:40:51 +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 PAA00141; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:30:29 +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 PAA27072; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:31:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222153213.00a8d920@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:35:06 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C76015B.90603@village.uunet.be> References: <3C75858A.31007.34AF2E1@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:29 22/02/2002 +0100, you wrote: >When there is a bye - you don't get any score. >But when a doctor is called away one hour before the end of the session, >suddenly you receive 4 boards at 60% ? AG : forfeiting a match because a player has to leave during its course will give your opps 18-0, wouldn't it ? At least, this is how a score in Zweiffel D1 was assigned in 1991. One of the reasons for giving 60% to the late opponents is that the pair might have given good scores to their initial opponents, something which wouldn't happen with a Bye. This might even be (shudder) their reason for leaving. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 01:44:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MEikc01964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:44:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MEiaH01939 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:44:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA00824; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:34:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA00915; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:35:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222153742.00a7db90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:38:52 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C763F14.9050600@village.uunet.be> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:52 22/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>"I can't define an *elephant*, but I know him when I see him" >>(Where is equity defined in the laws? See f.i. Law64C) > > >Nowhere. Which is exactly why you can't use the word "equity" in your >reply. You can say "I think it is equitable to scratch results", but you >cannot say "It is right to scratch results BECAUSE it is equitable". That >statement does not fly. AG : neither do elephants. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 01:56:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MEtuW03519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:55:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1MEtlH03495 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:55:47 +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 PAA18620; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:43:25 +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 PAA12993; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:46:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222154034.00a7ca50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:50:04 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps In-Reply-To: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:33 21/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK, Bramble, >what a bout a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without mentioning anything. >Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that claimer miscounted >them ? >I really have no doubt in cases like these, so there is no need to resolve >doubtful points. AG : okay, that's the key to it. Your duty, according to several rules, is to solve dubious cases against the OS. But TDs and ACs have every right to declare they have no doubt in this particular case. That's one of the main reasons for not deciding in an algorithmic way. How could algorithms decide when the TD should *feel* there is no doubt ? (this is quite the same as table feel, ie it's impossible to put it black on white). For example, I once decided that a declarer that had begun to unblock a suit was allowed to continue unblocking it even if he didn't state it. I was merely convinced by his line of play up to there that he knew what to do. How could an algorithm know ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 02:44:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MFi9L12108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 02:44:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MFhxH12080 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 02:43:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0547.bb.online.no [80.212.210.35]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19679; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:34:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1bbb6$5ea1f980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020222010828.LSRM17500.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1> <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C763F9E.7020903@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:34:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > > Was scoring (nearly) 100% against them luck, skill or typical? > > > > > Good question. > > Luck - then you deserve to keep this > skill - then you certainly deserve to keep this > typical - have you ever seen a pair with a typical score of > 0%?. I have not. Of course not 0% all the time as typical, but far below 40% - sure. And what if an "ordinary" pair has a very bad day - illness or something - and scores 10% average on the first three rounds before deciding to quit. Shall their opponents keep their 90% score while the rest of the field receives a mere 60%? I think the regulations we have are OK, and the occurrences are so scarce that the question really doesn't deserve this engagement. 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 Feb 23 02:48:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MFmpW13048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 02:48:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MFmfH13017 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 02:48:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0633.bb.online.no [80.212.210.121]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA16955; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:39:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002101c1bbb7$0c922c40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020222152123.00a3e400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:37:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > >I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained results for no > >reason other than something unrelated that happened afterwards. > > AG : 'fcourse. Imagine a team leaves a Swiss tournament two rounds before > the end. Assume there are no possible replacements, and that when you > realize they're away it's too late to set up a triplicate. Deleting their > former results would cause much more unbalancing than according their > presumptive opponents a bye, which according to CoC will range from 15 to 18. > In pairs events, the absurdity of deleting results is less obvious, but > results might, in some pathological cases, be skewed in the same way. > Unless the pair departed quite early, their results should stand. > One more thing : if you have to assess an artificial score, it should not > be 60 / 40, as some said, but > 60 / 0. Else, a pair could choose to walk away before the last round, which > they have to play against strong opposition, and benefit of it. > > Best regards, > > Alain. I know of no regulations that indicates the scratching of all results against a team or pair leaving a few rounds before the tournament ends. This picture seems completely irrelevant to me. 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 Feb 23 05:34:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MIX1m09405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 05:33:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MIWpH09382 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 05:32:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1MINCg27524 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:23:12 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C768CAB.1040704@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:23:39 +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] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222154034.00a7ca50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Alain, for your attempt at conciliation, but it's just not enough. Of course there are elements of TD appreciation here, and no-one is a good substitutee for table presence. But what Bramble and I have different opinions upon are quite the same cases. A declarer claims immediately after the lead, without any clarification. He has 12 trumps and about 17 tricks. Do we consider that he might miscount the trumps and forget to draw one ? I for sure don't. The fact that he did not state that he counted trumps is just as important as the fact that he did not state how many tricks he would make with Axxx opposite Kxxx (remember he has 17 tricks elsewhere (if such a thing is possible - I guess it is). The failure to mention the trump suit is NO evidence towards a miscounting of same - at least not when not a single one has been drawn. So really Alain, we are talking of cases where Bramble's PoV cannot simply be explained with TD appreciation. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:33 21/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> OK, Bramble, >> what a bout a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without mentioning >> anything. >> Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that claimer >> miscounted them ? >> I really have no doubt in cases like these, so there is no need to >> resolve doubtful points. > > > AG : okay, that's the key to it. Your duty, according to several rules, > is to solve dubious cases against the OS. But TDs and ACs have every > right to declare they have no doubt in this particular case. > That's one of the main reasons for not deciding in an algorithmic way. > How could algorithms decide when the TD should *feel* there is no doubt > ? (this is quite the same as table feel, ie it's impossible to put it > black on white). > For example, I once decided that a declarer that had begun to unblock a > suit was allowed to continue unblocking it even if he didn't state it. I > was merely convinced by his line of play up to there that he knew what > to do. How could an algorithm know ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 05:36:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MIaJ909899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 05:36:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MIaAH09887 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 05:36:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48251.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.123]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1MIQXg01179 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:26:33 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C768D74.90002@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:27:00 +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] Scoring Problem References: <20020222010828.LSRM17500.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1> <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C763F9E.7020903@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bbb6$5ea1f980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > >>>Was scoring (nearly) 100% against them luck, skill or typical? >>> >>> >> >>Good question. >> >>Luck - then you deserve to keep this >>skill - then you certainly deserve to keep this >>typical - have you ever seen a pair with a typical score of >>0%?. I have not. >> > > Of course not 0% all the time as typical, but far below 40% - > sure. > > And what if an "ordinary" pair has a very bad day - illness or > something - and scores 10% average on the first three rounds > before deciding to quit. Shall their opponents keep their 90% > score while the rest of the field receives a mere 60%? > I agree that this would be a situation where scratching would be equitable. > I think the regulations we have are OK, and the occurrences are > so scarce that the question really doesn't deserve this engagement. > I think the regulations you have are not OK, and that the cases in which they would be correct are scarce compared to the times it does happen. I once arrived three rounds into a tournament, and solved a bye. We played four rounds (hors concours) but the scores to the others stood. I believe no-one should be allowed to refuse the TD to play this. > Sven > > > > -- 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 Feb 23 07:14:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MKEA827150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:14:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MKE1H27125 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:14:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:04:27 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:21:43 -0600 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Revoke? Another Thursday at the club. X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2002 20:04:27.0897 (UTC) FILETIME=[21E57690:01C1BBDC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was called to a table toward the end of the play of a hand. THe contract was notrump, and with three cards left a heart was led from dummy. Next hand played the club Queen (a revoke, he had the heart Jack), then led the diamond 6. Meanwhile, his partner won the trick with the heart Queen and led the winning diamond Queen to trick 12, to be followed by the master diamond at trick thirteen. I had some trouble getting the facts from the players-they wanted to argue their cases before hand. The story above seems to be correct. I have a hypothetical question: If in fact the revoker had actually led the diamond 6 before his partner had led to trick 12, was this a lead out of turn that would establish the revoke? The partner of the revoker later complained bitterly that the revoke penalty was unfair, as the revoke had not affected the result at all. Of course, he was right. But the law is clear in this case. A few rounds later, a lead out of turn by the revoker. No more complaints. He has probably decided I am merely prejudiced against him. (Well, he's about the only person around here that I will not play with. He plays each card by putting it on the table on end, facing toward himself. Then he either lets the card fall over face up or picks the card up and plays a different card in the same manner.) REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 07:15:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MKF1x27304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MKEqH27283 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:14:52 +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 g1MK5p523298 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:05:51 -0900 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:04:47 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020222152123.00a3e400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 23:13 21/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained results for no > >reason other than something unrelated that happened afterwards. I agree too :) > One more thing : if you have to assess an artificial score, it should not > be 60 / 40, as some said, but > 60 / 0. Else, a pair could choose to walk away before the last round, which > they have to play against strong opposition, and benefit of it. I personally am quite happy with 60/40s (and of course there are other anti-cheating rules to fall back on if we need to heavily penalize someone for leaving early in an attempt to guarantee themselves a win.) Indeed it's quite rare that a round of AVG- scores won't cost you several places, and quite rare too to come upon opponents so much better than you that 40% is more than you can hope for... you can still get a 50% against the best in the world unless you make a mistake yourself that you deserve to pay for:) My main reason for posting is to offer the reassuring news that, even when people are offered the chance to do this, they don't seem to do it. The current policy at Swan Games online is that if you play more than 3/4 of the tournament boards you receive a final score based on the boards you played. That is, theoretically you can play the first nine hands and, if you happen to have a 65% game going, "accidentally" get disconnected and be unable to log back in for 20 minutes, and guarantee yourself a 65% final score for the session. [If your partner plays the last 3 boards with a substitute those 3 scores are kept separate from the 9 you played together, and you both get a final award based on the 9-board score.] There are any number of things not to like about this policy; the fact it makes it really easy to cheat is just one of them. But -- much to my surprise! -- in 3 months of directing tournaments there, *not even once* have I had a pair with a very high score after 3/4 of the game leave early. (By contrast, several times people have walked out after a bad start - this gets them a 2-week suspension - and a few have been caught using instant messaging, which gets them out for good and a letter sent to their NCBO.) So, perhaps it isn't such a big problem after all! GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 08:24:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MLNVC08798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:23:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1MLNMH08773 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:23:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP23.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.23]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA28422; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:02:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Revoke? Another Thursday at the club. Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:02 -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) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <"v04020a00b89c54ed8382(a)(091)128.206.98.1(093)*"@MHS> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris Wrote: I was called to a table toward the end of the play of a hand. THe contract was notrump, and with three cards left a heart was led from dummy. Next hand played the club Queen (a revoke, he had the heart Jack), then led the diamond 6. Meanwhile, his partner won the trick with the heart Queen and led the winning diamond Queen to trick 12, to be followed by the master diamond at trick thirteen. I had some trouble getting the facts from the players-they wanted to argue their cases before hand. The story above seems to be correct. I have a hypothetical question: If in fact the revoker had actually led the diamond 6 before his partner had led to trick 12, was this a lead out of turn that would establish the revoke? The partner of the revoker later complained bitterly that the revoke penalty was unfair, as the revoke had not affected the result at all. Of course, he was right. But the law is clear in this case. _________________________________________________________________________ Law 63A1 reads: "A revoke becomes established: 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke)." So the revoke, at 11th trick, was established by both offenders playing to the next trick (legally or not) and Law 64 must apply. - Offenders won at least two tricks from the revoke to the end of the play (1 in H and 2 in D). - The revoker (declarer's RHO) did not win the revoke trick (his partner did) and did not make a trick later with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick (a H). - So a one trick penalty applies. You don't have to deal with revoker's partner complaint but just explain that this law is quite automatic, no matter the cards in hands. You only have to deal with 64C if you deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated (not the case here because declarer had a "free" trick). The revoke law seems sometimes unfair for revoker's side, but they just have to pay more attention to the game. Every bridge player pay the price of a revoke sometimes (except on the Net...). What about the D6 "lead out of turn"? Not clear to me. It seems that declarer played to the 12th trick (and 13th one) so this "out of turn lead" was accepted and DQ (an exposed card) was correctly played to the trick. But TD was not called in time so who cares... Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 23 09:00:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1MM0JW15665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:00:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MM0AH15644 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:00:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3248.bb.online.no [80.212.220.176]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA02624; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:50:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007401c1bbea$ef944ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" , "Robert E. Harris" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke? Another Thursday at the club. Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:50:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Robert E. Harris" > I was called to a table toward the end of the play of a hand. THe contract > was notrump, and with three cards left a heart was led from dummy. Next > hand played the club Queen (a revoke, he had the heart Jack), then led the > diamond 6. Meanwhile, his partner won the trick with the heart Queen and > led the winning diamond Queen to trick 12, to be followed by the master > diamond at trick thirteen. I had some trouble getting the facts from the > players-they wanted to argue their cases before hand. > > The story above seems to be correct. I have a hypothetical question: If > in fact the revoker had actually led the diamond 6 before his partner had > led to trick 12, was this a lead out of turn that would establish the > revoke? Yes (law63A1), but there is more to this story: Because the D6 is a premature lead to the twelfth trick law57A also applies on what LHO can play to trick 11. However, as LHO only has one heart - the highest - in this particular case Law57A makes no difference. And as offenders partner takes all the tricks for the defence after (and including) the revoke trick the penalty in this case is just one trick. > > The partner of the revoker later complained bitterly that the revoke > penalty was unfair, as the revoke had not affected the result at all. Of > course, he was right. But the law is clear in this case. exactly > > A few rounds later, a lead out of turn by the revoker. No more complaints. > He has probably decided I am merely prejudiced against him. (Well, he's > about the only person around here that I will not play with. He plays each > card by putting it on the table on end, facing toward himself. Then he > either lets the card fall over face up or picks the card up and plays a > different card in the same manner.) Is that all you hold against him? I hope not because if so I think you are a bit unreasonable. 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 Feb 23 19:28:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1N8RBF07464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:27:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1N8R1H07431 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:27:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.70.80] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16eXMy-000Jnh-00; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:17:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c1bc42$f13aa3a0$5046e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" , "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020221092406.00af2940@pop.starpower.net> <000501c1bb55$91cb0420$062928c4@john> Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:15:07 -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: "Eric Landau" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching > Sounds like we are coming back to something like the > ghostly Law of Coincidence. > John > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director > Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation > | > | > "Yes, it is a psych. No adjustment should be made, > however, unless the psycher's partner bids as though > he expected it. If the psycher's partner bids as > though he expected the psych, that should be taken as > evidence of an undisclosed agreement as to the > meaning of the call. If the director judges the other > side to be damaged as a result of *that*, he may > adjust the score. Otherwise, the result has to stand > regardless of damage." > +=+ This is interesting insofar as it is a statement concerning the evidence that the ACBL requires for the existence of an implicit understanding. It does not address the opponents' right to receive disclosure of *any* implicit agreement, which should be 'prior' disclosure (Law 40A), allowing them to discuss countermeasures before the implicit agreement is used against them. The Laws also require that partners "are to list their conventions and other agreements" on a CC where one is prescribed. Thus if partnership experience is such that an implicit understanding has developed this agreement should be listed on the convention card. Subscribers to blml will not require a reminder concerning the minute of the WBF Laws Committee (20th August 2000, item 8) in which the words "whether he does so or not" may be noted. ~ 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 Feb 25 00:16:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ODEVt00685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:14:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1ODELH00651 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:14:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.140] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16eyKS-000IVE-00; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:04:36 +0000 Message-ID: <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:35:29 -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: "Karel" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B > > Yes - it is amazing, > +=+ There are some who think this law grew out of Kaplan's distress over a personal experience. In discussion he would usually cite first the aberrational pass of a cue following a pause for thought; he did also mention the plight of a player who fails to see partner's call on the tray when playing with screens. +=+ > > and I hope this particular law will disappear > again with the next revision. > +=+ or even disappear for the first and only time? Since traffic is light (and braving the risk that Kooijman-Cop will give me a ticket for driving under the influence of alcohol) let me chisel roughly in the stone an epigraph from last night's dream*: "25 B. 1. When the circumstances allowing of a change of call under A above are no longer present, and not after LHO has called following his first call at that turn, a player is allowed to change a pass to a bid. The Director shall be summoned when the player indicates his desire to change the call, and no player shall take any further action until the Director has informed the players of the conditions under which a change may be made. 2. A change of a pass under (1) above is subject to the following restrictions: (a) the change is not permitted if the last preceding bid was made by an opponent; (b) the change is not permitted if the last preceding bid was made by partner and is in a denomination that, given the prior auction and the player's hand, could justifiably be selected at that turn for the final contract; ** (c) for partner any inferential information from the change of call is unauthorized. (See Law 16). (d) following a change of call under Law 25B the opponents receive the score obtained at the table (unless (c) above applies) but the side that has changed its pass receives the score obtained at the table or Average Minus whichever is the lower. In knockout play both sides score plus 3 imps in favour of the opponents unless the actual result is more favourable for them. C. When regulating play with screens an option may be exercised to allow a player to make any change of call that he wishes if in the opinion of the Director his sight of his partner's call has been impaired. Regulation may then provide either for the restriction of score as in 2(d) or, if stated, that the change is made without penalty #. The regulation may not allow of a change made after his or his screenmate's call at that turn has passed under the screen. Any such change is disallowed." Vision or nightmare? ~ G ~ +=+ [* this could be a mixed metaphor] [** in (b) consideration should be given to the case for "..... in a denomination that and at a level that, given ....." ] [# ? or that restriction of score applies only when the player is partly or wholly to blame for his failure to see - ? 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 Mon Feb 25 00:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ODstt08680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:54:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1ODskH08654 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:54:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0601.bb.online.no [80.212.210.89]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA04719; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:45:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1bd39$6d2659e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:44:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" ...... > > and I hope this particular law will disappear > > again with the next revision. > > > +=+ or even disappear for the first and only time? > Since traffic is light (and braving the risk that > Kooijman-Cop will give me a ticket for driving under > the influence of alcohol) let me chisel roughly in the > stone an epigraph from last night's dream*: > > "25 B. 1. When the circumstances allowing of a > change of call under A above are no longer > present, and not after LHO has called following > his first call at that turn, a player is allowed to > change a pass to a bid. The Director shall be > summoned when the player indicates his desire to > change the call, and no player shall take any further > action until the Director has informed the players of > the conditions under which a change may be made. > 2. A change of a pass under (1) above is > subject to the following restrictions: > (a) the change is not permitted if the last > preceding bid was made by an opponent; > (b) the change is not permitted if the last > preceding bid was made by partner and is in a > denomination that, given the prior auction and the > player's hand, could justifiably be selected at > that turn for the final contract; ** > (c) for partner any inferential information from > the change of call is unauthorized. (See Law 16). > (d) following a change of call under Law 25B the > opponents receive the score obtained at the table > (unless (c) above applies) but the side that has > changed its pass receives the score obtained at > the table or Average Minus whichever is the lower. > In knockout play both sides score plus 3 imps in > favour of the opponents unless the actual result > is more favourable for them. > C. When regulating play with screens an > option may be exercised to allow a player to make > any change of call that he wishes if in the opinion > of the Director his sight of his partner's call has > been impaired. Regulation may then provide either > for the restriction of score as in 2(d) or, if stated, > that the change is made without penalty #. The > regulation may not allow of a change made after > his or his screenmate's call at that turn has > passed under the screen. Any such change is > disallowed." > > Vision or nightmare? ~ G ~ +=+> > [* this could be a mixed metaphor] > [** in (b) consideration should be given to the > case for "..... in a denomination that and at a > level that, given ....." ] > [# ? or that restriction of score applies only > when the player is partly or wholly to blame > for his failure to see - ? footnote] Nightmare IMO we should strive towards simpler, not more complicated laws, and the first question to be asked should be: What do we want? I personally prefer the lawbook to be no greater than fitting into my pocket without having to order specially tailored jackets. Do we really need (or want) the legal possibility for a player to change his mind after he has made a call? My opinion is obviously "no", but if the majority says "yes" then I see no logical reason why this legal possibility should be limited to changing pass calls only. And if this legal possibility is to remain, law25B as it stands today certainly needs some revision, maybe along the lines in Grattans dream/vision/nightmare? A word on screens: As long as the tray has not been passed over to the other side I favour a rule that any changes whatsoever may be allowed on the last calls made, those that are still unknown on the other side of the screen. Whether this is a matter for law, or as until now for regulations is a different matter. 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 Feb 25 09:39:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1OMcct11748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1OMcRH11725 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:38:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1NMiko07000 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:44:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:27:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@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 <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"It is the logic of our times, >No subject for immortal verse - >That we who lived by honest dreams >Defend the bad against the worse." > [C. Day-Lewis] >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "Karel" ; >"Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:11 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B >> >> Yes - it is amazing, >> >+=+ There are some who think this law grew >out of Kaplan's distress over a personal >experience. In discussion he would usually >cite first the aberrational pass of a cue following >a pause for thought; he did also mention the >plight of a player who fails to see partner's call >on the tray when playing with screens. +=+ >> >> and I hope this particular law will disappear >> again with the next revision. >> >+=+ or even disappear for the first and only time? > Since traffic is light (and braving the risk that >Kooijman-Cop will give me a ticket for driving under >the influence of alcohol) let me chisel roughly in the >stone an epigraph from last night's dream*: > > "25 B. 1. When the circumstances allowing of a >change of call under A above are no longer >present, and not after LHO has called following >his first call at that turn, a player is allowed to >change a pass to a bid. The Director shall be >summoned when the player indicates his desire to >change the call, and no player shall take any further >action until the Director has informed the players of >the conditions under which a change may be made. > 2. A change of a pass under (1) above is >subject to the following restrictions: > (a) the change is not permitted if the last >preceding bid was made by an opponent; > (b) the change is not permitted if the last >preceding bid was made by partner and is in a >denomination that, given the prior auction and the >player's hand, could justifiably be selected at >that turn for the final contract; ** > (c) for partner any inferential information from >the change of call is unauthorized. (See Law 16). > (d) following a change of call under Law 25B the >opponents receive the score obtained at the table >(unless (c) above applies) but the side that has >changed its pass receives the score obtained at >the table or Average Minus whichever is the lower. >In knockout play both sides score plus 3 imps in >favour of the opponents unless the actual result >is more favourable for them. Grattan, PLEASE, just kill 25B. I pass a cue - it's just TOO BAD > C. When regulating play with screens an >option may be exercised to allow a player to make >any change of call that he wishes if in the opinion >of the Director his sight of his partner's call has >been impaired. [and the trolley hasn't been passed]. wtf difference does it make if the trolley hasn't been passed? You can put that into 25A with one extra clause. >Regulation may then provide either >for the restriction of score as in 2(d) or, if stated, >that the change is made without penalty #. > The >regulation may not allow of a change made after >his or his screenmate's call at that turn has >passed under the screen. Any such change is >disallowed." Of course, wtp? > >Vision or nightmare? ~ G ~ +=+ common sense, I'd call it. Look, I'm a simple minded soul - I'd like people to be able to play bridge like I learnt at my mother's knee - and "I didn't hear/see partner's call/LHO's call", whatever, provided there's no huge and obvious UI to pard (like a visible withdrawn call) should be ok. 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 Feb 25 09:59:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1OMxOA14313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1OMxEH14291 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:59:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1NN5Yo07060 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:05:34 GMT Message-ID: <5ixVWhAp2We8Ewcz@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:48:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <004701c1bd39$6d2659e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <004701c1bd39$6d2659e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004701c1bd39$6d2659e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Grattan Endicott" snip ludicrous basis for retaining any vestige of 25B > >Nightmare Quite so, if it relates to any remote kinship with 25B > >IMO we should strive towards simpler, not more >complicated laws, and the first question to be >asked should be: What do we want? >I personally prefer the lawbook to be no greater >than fitting into my pocket without having to order >specially tailored jackets. Quite - I paid a lot of money for my EBU jacket. > >Do we really need (or want) the legal possibility >for a player to change his mind after he has >made a call? Not till Hell freezes over > >My opinion is obviously "no", but if the majority >says "yes" then I see no logical reason why this >legal possibility should be limited to changing >pass calls only. > >And if this legal possibility is to remain, law25B >as it stands today certainly needs some revision, >maybe along the lines in Grattans >dream/vision/nightmare? > >A word on screens: As long as the tray has not >been passed over to the other side I favour a rule >that any changes whatsoever may be allowed on >the last calls made, those that are still unknown >on the other side of the screen. This is so obvious we shouldn't even argue. (ok, let's have 72B applying when 1st screen-mate makes a call and then changes it when 2nd screen- mate does something). At least the players would have some idea about the workings of this based on natural justice. 25B is WRONG. Why? Because it is not based on natural justice. If I f**k up on a cue bid, I *expect* to play in a 2-1 fit. Why am I allowed to change this? Look guys - I don't often jump on a white charger to come to the rescue of the damsel-in-distress (If I can't fine them I'm just disappointed because it costs me drinks). It's easy. If I pass Stayman (aka Kaplanesque delicate 5-level cue-bid) because I'm fantasising about getting between Wendy's legs, I pay for it. If I pull 2D from the bid-box instead of 2H (when I meant 2H) because I'm looking at Wendy's legs I can change it (law 25A permitting). There is a difference in intent (both sexual and bridgewise). >Whether this is a >matter for law, or as until now for regulations is a >different matter. > This should all be Law. cheers john (a serious I'm with Sven 100%. 5,000 tables a year TD) >Sven -- 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 Feb 25 10:21:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ONKxQ17705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:21:00 +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 g1ONKjH17682 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:20:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16f7nM-000Fuu-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:58:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ There are some who think this law grew >out of Kaplan's distress over a personal >experience. In discussion he would usually >cite first the aberrational pass of a cue following >a pause for thought; he did also mention the >plight of a player who fails to see partner's call >on the tray when playing with screens. +=+ >> >> and I hope this particular law will disappear >> again with the next revision. >> >+=+ or even disappear for the first and only time? > Since traffic is light (and braving the risk that >Kooijman-Cop will give me a ticket for driving under >the influence of alcohol) let me chisel roughly in the >stone an epigraph from last night's dream*: > > "25 B. 1. When the circumstances allowing of a >change of call under A above are no longer >present, and not after LHO has called following >his first call at that turn, a player is allowed to >change a pass to a bid. The Director shall be >summoned when the player indicates his desire to >change the call, and no player shall take any further >action until the Director has informed the players of >the conditions under which a change may be made. > 2. A change of a pass under (1) above is >subject to the following restrictions: > (a) the change is not permitted if the last >preceding bid was made by an opponent; > (b) the change is not permitted if the last >preceding bid was made by partner and is in a >denomination that, given the prior auction and the >player's hand, could justifiably be selected at >that turn for the final contract; ** > (c) for partner any inferential information from >the change of call is unauthorized. (See Law 16). > (d) following a change of call under Law 25B the >opponents receive the score obtained at the table >(unless (c) above applies) but the side that has >changed its pass receives the score obtained at >the table or Average Minus whichever is the lower. >In knockout play both sides score plus 3 imps in >favour of the opponents unless the actual result >is more favourable for them. > C. When regulating play with screens an >option may be exercised to allow a player to make >any change of call that he wishes if in the opinion >of the Director his sight of his partner's call has >been impaired. Regulation may then provide either >for the restriction of score as in 2(d) or, if stated, >that the change is made without penalty #. The >regulation may not allow of a change made after >his or his screenmate's call at that turn has >passed under the screen. Any such change is >disallowed." > >Vision or nightmare? Nightmare. Why should we allow a change when L25A does not apply? -- 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 Feb 25 10:21:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ONKvA17701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:20:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1ONKgH17673 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:20:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16f7nK-000Fuy-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:47:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C757105.8070109@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 see GB and NO have mentioned this case in regulations. >Any others ? > >But Wayne asked for a general opinion, about what to do if >there are no regulations, or of how to write regulations. > >I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained >results for no reason other than something unrelated that >happened afterwards. Well, it had to happen!!! I agree 100% with Herman. Seriously, would you really feel you were being fair if you take a good result away from a pair that have committed no 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 Mon Feb 25 10:21:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1ONL0m17706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:21:00 +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 g1ONKiH17679 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:20:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16f7nL-000Fuv-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:50:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "Herman De Wael" >..... >> > >> >>I believe it is utterly wrong to discard correctly obtained >> >>results for no reason other than something unrelated that >> >>happened afterwards. >> >> >> > >> > Personally I think it is a very good reason for scratching >> > the results obtained against a pair that has only played >> > a minor part of the tournament. That reason is equity. >> > >> >> >> Don't say things like that with a loaded word like equity. >> Define equity. > >"I can't define an elephant, but I know him when I see him" > >(Where is equity defined in the laws? See f.i. Law64C) > >> How equitable is it to see your 6Sp bid and made disappear >> together with the pair whom you played it against ? >> or your 6SpX-3 for that manner ? >> I realize that in the interest of fairness, everyone should >> play the same opponents. But in large fields that is totally >> impossible. >> So you have played 4 boards, against a pair that is presumed >> about average, and now your results are scratched, just >> because this pair played only 5 other opponents in stead of 7 ? >> I don't see what equity has to do with it. > >If the disappearing pair has not played a certain minimum of >the tournament how do you know whether the already obtained >results against them were due to skill, luck or their current >capability just at this tournament? How do you know that 60% >compensation for not meeting them is reasonable? You don't, nor do you need to. It has nothing to do with the disappearing pair. You enter a tourney, trying to win it, and some boards that you are expecting to play are taken away from you. L12C1 says you get A+ on such boards, which is generally perceived to be a fair compromise in giving you a chance to win. Why should we not follow this in the given case? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 25 11:37:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1P0asn02522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:36:54 +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 g1P0ajH02499 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:36:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA19634 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA10147 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:27:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:27:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202250027.TAA10147@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > As far as claims are concerned, let me see what BLML does not agree > on: > > Whether odd items matter > Whether irrational is easy to use as a concept > Whether we should lay down particular guidelines for claims > If yes, what those guidelines are > How a precedent should be used > > I suppose there are a few other trivia. How lenient or harsh we want to be in case of poorly stated claims? Or put another way, what do we demand a claimer spell out, and what may be left unstated? > Having considered overnight, I think I have explained this badly. The > way we rule in this example is a matter of judgement in my view, because > the Law is clear: that is why it is not very interesting. I think it is interesting to learn how experienced TD's go about gathering evidence, what evidence they consider important, and how they weigh the evidence to form a judgment. > >> >2. Try to guess "what would have happened," more or less on a case > >> > by case basis. > > L70A says: 'In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer.' > > The trouble with method 2 is that it tends to ignore the last phrase. I think the quotes and the phrase "more or less" allow scope for the last phrase, but see below. Obviously BLML has little consensus, but I think our disagreements can be summarized as two independent dimensions: 1. How much or how little SO/NA/LC guidance is desired? 2. In case of an imperfect claim or claim statement, how much "doubt" do we require in order to rule against the claimer? As to point 1, one extreme position would make all claim rulings algorithmic. Obviously that's impossible because there are so many variations in deals and claim statements. But the other extreme is "make it up as we go along," or even "rule in favor of the regular customers," and I don't think we favor that either. But where in the vast space in the middle do we wish to be? As to point 2, some people are willing to rule against claimer whenever there is the slightest hint of doubt, while others are reluctant to do so unless there is clear evidence that claimer has the position wrong. And in case of an undoubted bad claim, some rule "worst legal line of play," while others are willing to exclude legal but unlikely lines. The "hawks" argue that claimers should not get away with careless claims, while the "doves" argue that we don't want to discourage claims. While the opinions expressed have been pretty much all over the map, perhaps the answer to question 1 might be "more than we have now." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 25 13:02:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1P21Vm05851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:01:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1P21MH05847 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g1P1piC13198 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:51:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002801c1bd9e$fad610e0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020221144630.00af5780@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements about psyching Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:51:25 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Richard wrote: > > >One quick question: > >In the past, there has been some question regarding whether information > >posted in the Bulletin represents "official" ACBL policy. > > > >Does anyone know the status of the "Ruling the Game" column? Is this > >official policy or just Mike Flader's opinion? > > I don't think there can be any doubt about its official > status. Questions for the column are taken by e-mail to > rulings@acbl.org, which is listed (p. 4 of the same issue) as the > address for official inquiries to the ACBL about rulings. Let us hope that the Chief Tournament Director reviews Mike's columns and approves them, since he is the sole authority for ACBL TD policies in regard to applying Laws and regulations. > > One also notes that it generally appears in immediate proximity to > another column, Ron Gerard's "Appeals: A New View", which the ACBL has > said, explicitly, represents Mr. Gerard's own, unofficial viewpoint, > creating at least an implicit contrast between the columns. > > The bottom line, though, is that, given the standard intro to the > column ("If you have questions relating to the Laws of the game or a > ruling...") and the fact that it appears without any hint of disclaimer > in the Bulletin ("the official publication of the American Contract > Bridge League", according to its masthead), whether or not the ACBL > would confirm it to be "officially official" it is sure to be taken > that way throughout the ACBL, by TDs and AC members along with everyone > else. There is a higher authority, which is the BoD. On one occasion Mike contradicted the Alert Procedure, which came from the BoD. That was when he said that the non-penalty double of a certain notrump bid was not Alertable. The AP says that doubles of notrump bids are Type II doubles, Alertable if non-penalty, with no exception given. Time and again ACBL TDs have maintained that certain calls are either or Alertable or not Alertable on the basis of what they think is common practice. That is a criterion for the BoD, not TDs, to consider. I do not accept that any contradiction of BoD policy can be considered "official." 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 Feb 25 18:41:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1P7dmW03205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:39:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1P7ddH03183 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:39:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.3.84] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fFVA-0000WT-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:24:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:32:15 -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: Sunday, February 24, 2002 10:58 PM Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B > > Nightmare. Why should we allow a change when > L25A does not apply? > > -- +=+ Well, David, I am not saying we should do this or that. We all know there are numbers of people who would simply delete 25B; there are other views. I am simply examining what alternatives might lie between the extremes. So I looked at the main arguments made for the present law and asked myself whether we could cater for those without allowing much else. If middle ways prove to be needed it helps to have considered what they might be. ~ 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 Feb 25 19:00:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1P7wZp06656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:58:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1P7wPH06618 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:58:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3555.bb.online.no [80.212.221.227]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19381; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:48:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1bdd0$d6e28060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:48:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan: Would you care to list the existing arguments for Law25B? It might help others (well at least me) to evaluate whether we appreciate this law or would rather have it removed at the first opportunity. At the present I (for one) am strongly against that law, but I do not exclude the possibility that I might change my mind given convincing arguments for it. (Only just now I don't really see what kind of arguments I would find convincing). regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" ....... > > Nightmare. Why should we allow a change when > > L25A does not apply? > > > > -- > +=+ Well, David, I am not saying we should do this > or that. We all know there are numbers of people > who would simply delete 25B; there are other views. > I am simply examining what alternatives might lie > between the extremes. > So I looked at the main arguments made for > the present law and asked myself whether we could > cater for those without allowing much else. If middle > ways prove to be needed it helps to have considered > what they might be. ~ 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 Feb 25 22:25:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PBORM11188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:24:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PBOIH11173 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47655.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.39]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1PBEbc17321 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:14:37 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:15:06 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > You don't, nor do you need to. It has nothing to do with the > disappearing pair. You enter a tourney, trying to win it, and some > boards that you are expecting to play are taken away from you. L12C1 > says you get A+ on such boards, which is generally perceived to be a > fair compromise in giving you a chance to win. > > Why should we not follow this in the given case? > Because we are not talking of one board you cannot play, but three or four. The compensation for not being able to score a top on one board is (IMHO) no longer needed when there are too many boards. We all know that 60% is a very good compensation, and we are happy to receive it. Four times the same is no compensation, it's downright advantageous. And then the pairs that did play the semi-gone pair do have a regular complaint because they did not get this windfall. > -- 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 Feb 25 22:39:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PBdbM13575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:39:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1PBdNH13543 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:39:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16fJJX-0001TY-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:01:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claim Principle References: <200202250027.TAA10147@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200202250027.TAA10147@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 >Obviously BLML has little consensus, but I think our disagreements can >be summarized as two independent dimensions: > >1. How much or how little SO/NA/LC guidance is desired? Desired? I would have thought that it is just a question of how much there is. It cannot do much harm to have a fair amount of guidance, though I believe this is one area where the WBFLC are not the right people to spell out the application of the Law, unless it is a question of the meaning of the Law. >2. In case of an imperfect claim or claim statement, how much "doubt" do >we require in order to rule against the claimer? > >As to point 1, one extreme position would make all claim rulings >algorithmic. Obviously that's impossible because there are so many >variations in deals and claim statements. But the other extreme is >"make it up as we go along," or even "rule in favor of the regular >customers," and I don't think we favor that either. But where in the >vast space in the middle do we wish to be? Where we should be, I suppose. I find it difficult to produce abstract arguments in judgement matters. If you give me the next twenty contested claims that any member of BLML sees, I expect 17 or 18 of them to seem clear and obvious to me, but to express why and how without seeing them is tricky. >As to point 2, some people are willing to rule against claimer whenever >there is the slightest hint of doubt, while others are reluctant to do >so unless there is clear evidence that claimer has the position wrong. I don't really care about people's reluctance to follow the Laws. We can, of course, produce a training session for people on BLML, but I doubt that that is what BLML is for. The claim Law may have some imperfections, but it is pretty clear that it does not encompass either of these extreme positions. >And in case of an undoubted bad claim, some rule "worst legal line of >play," while others are willing to exclude legal but unlikely lines. >The "hawks" argue that claimers should not get away with careless >claims, while the "doves" argue that we don't want to discourage >claims. Again, the arguments on BLML from hawks and doves are too extreme [subject to the favourite BLML ploy of, when asked what you do in a situation, answer with how it should be changed in future]. -- 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 Feb 26 00:07:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PD6YA26472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:06:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1PD6PH26468 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:06:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16fKg1-000NT1-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:56:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:49:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C7A1CBA.9090601@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> You don't, nor do you need to. It has nothing to do with the >> disappearing pair. You enter a tourney, trying to win it, and some >> boards that you are expecting to play are taken away from you. L12C1 >> says you get A+ on such boards, which is generally perceived to be a >> fair compromise in giving you a chance to win. >> >> Why should we not follow this in the given case? >Because we are not talking of one board you cannot play, but >three or four. The compensation for not being able to score >a top on one board is (IMHO) no longer needed when there are >too many boards. We all know that 60% is a very good >compensation, and we are happy to receive it. Four times >the same is no compensation, it's downright advantageous. >And then the pairs that did play the semi-gone pair do have >a regular complaint because they did not get this windfall. It seems better to me to assume the WBFLC knew what they were doing when they wrote L12C1. There are boards for them to play - and four is rare in a pairs tourney against one oppo - and they no longer can. What are you suggesting otherwise, that they receive no score, as they do for boards that they would not expect to play, eg against a sit-out pair? If they have a score of over 60% the two methods get the same answer. If they have a score of under 60% then following the law book seems more likely to leave the pair happy, while rarely affecting who wins. -- 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 Feb 26 00:39:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PDbUt26490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:37:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PDbMH26486 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:37:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47655.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.39]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1PDRdc26454 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:27:39 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:28:08 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@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 Well David, David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> > >>> You don't, nor do you need to. It has nothing to do with the >>>disappearing pair. You enter a tourney, trying to win it, and some >>>boards that you are expecting to play are taken away from you. L12C1 >>>says you get A+ on such boards, which is generally perceived to be a >>>fair compromise in giving you a chance to win. >>> >>> Why should we not follow this in the given case? >>> > >>Because we are not talking of one board you cannot play, but >>three or four. The compensation for not being able to score >>a top on one board is (IMHO) no longer needed when there are >>too many boards. We all know that 60% is a very good >>compensation, and we are happy to receive it. Four times >>the same is no compensation, it's downright advantageous. >>And then the pairs that did play the semi-gone pair do have >>a regular complaint because they did not get this windfall. >> > > It seems better to me to assume the WBFLC knew what they were doing > when they wrote L12C1. There are boards for them to play - and four is > rare in a pairs tourney against one oppo - and they no longer can. > 4 boards a round is very common in Belgium; L12C1 says "no result can be obtained". it is actually silent about a board not being played. Just to say that this is open to interpretation. We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? Then why should we do differently for a semi-sit-out ? There is still no opponent, for whatever reason. > What are you suggesting otherwise, that they receive no score, as they > do for boards that they would not expect to play, eg against a sit-out > pair? If they have a score of over 60% the two methods get the same > answer. If they have a score of under 60% then following the law book > seems more likely to leave the pair happy, while rarely affecting who > wins. > We are not here to discuss the likelihood of it mattering. Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. > -- 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 Feb 26 02:12:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PFC6r26538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:12:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PFBwH26534 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:11:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1060.bb.online.no [80.212.212.36]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA03840; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:02:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem ..... > L12C1 says "no result can be obtained". it is actually > silent about a board not being played. Is it? Then why not look at Law 88? If all the pairs have a "sit-out" it obviously doesn't matter for the final results which score if any is awarded to the pair, but once you need an intermediate result or not all the pairs have a "sit-out" it becomes neccessary to award some score. And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" correctly although I have never heard it before, here we say "walk-over") > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > Then why should we do differently for a semi-sit-out ? I agree, we should do exactly the same - 60%. They are unable to obtain a score, and they are in no way responsible. ..... > We are not here to discuss the likelihood of it mattering. > Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. > I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who > scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. The worst rules are those that are flexible, or bent, depending upon how much they matter. As far as possible a rule should be "blind", that is: The same rule for all comparable cases regardless of whether they influence the final result or not (and of course regardless of whether the affected parties are "friendly" with the TD or not). 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 Feb 26 02:23:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PFN7e26551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:23:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PFMwH26547 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.27] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fMoZ-0008gQ-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:13:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> <000b01c1bdd0$d6e28060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:18:55 -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" ; "David Stevenson" ; Sent: 25 February 2002 07:48 Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B > Grattan: Would you care to list the existing arguments > for Law25B? It might help others (well at least me) to > evaluate whether we appreciate this law or would rather > have it removed at the first opportunity. > +=+ "The last few Laws revisions have oscillated between the severe position that a legal call must stand once made (e.g. the offender uses Blackwood - gets a five heart response, decides against bidding slam, and passes --- but his intended trump suit is spades; he wakes up and corrects to five spades but his pass stands: this was widely perceived as overly harsh, producing too many non-bridge results) and the current lenient position that a call may be substituted (offender is allowed to bid five spades, barring partner: this is seen as overly permissive, often letting an offender pay no real penalty for his carelessness). The suggested change is a compromise. Offender need not languish in an absurd contract because of his momentary lapse, but he must accept a losing result if elects to change the call. Thus, he will not change lightly (e.g. a player passes partner's three-notrump bid, then, before LHO acts, changes his mind: "No, I guess I had better bid four spades." Under the current Law, he can play in four spades virtually without penalty; under the projected Law, he may correct, but will almost surely take his chances in the original three-notrump contract." [June 15th 1994, Edgar Kaplan] I have taken the first of his points, the aberrant pass, and I have taken the position when failing to see a bidding card on the tray, and tried to cater for them - in a simple position that I have not been able to accomplish without more words (but plain for the Director to operate) - without allowing the kind of change of mind that is Kaplan's second point. I do stress again that I am exploring possibilities, not arguing for one thing or another. ~ 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 Feb 26 02:57:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PFut626582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:56:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1PFulH26578 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:56:47 +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 QAA20517; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:44:20 +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 QAA29260; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:47:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225164557.00a793c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:51:04 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C768D74.90002@village.uunet.be> References: <20020222010828.LSRM17500.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1> <002101c1bb7d$6fbdcb60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C763F9E.7020903@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bbb6$5ea1f980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:27 22/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>And what if an "ordinary" pair has a very bad day - illness or >>something - and scores 10% average on the first three rounds >>before deciding to quit. Shall their opponents keep their 90% >>score while the rest of the field receives a mere 60%? > > >I agree that this would be a situation where scratching would be equitable. AG : one further problem with scratching is that a pair may suffer from not knowing it would happen ; imagine a pair which is in contention know they scored nearly 100% against the would-be-retired pair, along with several other good tables. They may well decide, at some point in the tournament, to play conservative for the rest of the session, because they feel that averages throughout will let them meet their objectives. Now you tell them their 100% round was discarded ; can't they feel being swindled ? Giving the retirers' opponents a bye and letting all scores subsist seems more like uniformly fair. Best regards, Alain. >>I think the regulations we have are OK, and the occurrences are >>so scarce that the question really doesn't deserve this engagement. > > >I think the regulations you have are not OK, and that the cases in which >they would be correct are scarce compared to the times it does happen. > >I once arrived three rounds into a tournament, and solved a bye. We played >four rounds (hors concours) but the scores to the others stood. I believe >no-one should be allowed to refuse the TD to play this. > > >>Sven >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 03:05:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PG51K26609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:05:01 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PG4pH26605 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:04:52 +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 QAA22344; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:52:25 +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 QAA08166; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:55:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225165354.00a912a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:59:09 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:01 25/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can >remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" >correctly although I have never heard it before, here we >say "walk-over") AG : IIRC from table-tennis and other competitions, a player, pair or team is given a walk-over when its opponent doesn't appear when called, and a bye when the schedule doesn't give them any opponents for this round (ie as a top seed they may skip the 1st round, or they're playing a round-robin with an odd number of competitors). Which of thoses cases are included in the term "sit-out" I'd like to know. Best regards, Alain. > > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? > >We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > > > Then why should we do differently for a semi-sit-out ? > >I agree, we should do exactly the same - 60%. They >are unable to obtain a score, and they are in no way >responsible. > >..... > > > We are not here to discuss the likelihood of it mattering. > > Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. > > I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who > > scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. > >The worst rules are those that are flexible, or bent, depending >upon how much they matter. As far as possible a rule should >be "blind", that is: The same rule for all comparable cases >regardless of whether they influence the final result or not (and >of course regardless of whether the affected parties are >"friendly" with the TD or not). > >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 Feb 26 03:22:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGLtc26669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:21:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1PGLkH26665 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:21:47 +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 RAA25969; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:08:50 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA24223; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:11:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225170646.00a94b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:15:31 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "BLML" , "Robert E. Harris" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke? Another Thursday at the club. In-Reply-To: <007401c1bbea$ef944ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> 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 22:50 22/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > A few rounds later, a lead out of turn by the revoker. No more >complaints. > > He has probably decided I am merely prejudiced against him. (Well, he's > > about the only person around here that I will not play with. He plays >each > > card by putting it on the table on end, facing toward himself. Then he > > either lets the card fall over face up or picks the card up and plays a > > different card in the same manner.) > >Is that all you hold against him? I hope not because if so I think you are >a bit unreasonable. AG : I'm not as leninent as you are on this pont; This habit creates a lot of UI, slows the play, and gives the TD headaches linked to L45C1. It's quite unpleasant, thus I would ask this guy not to do it when playing with me, or not to play with me. And when I'm the TD, I could ask him to stop doing it, showing him L45A. BTW, I'd like to see the verb in this paragraph changed to 'should be played', so that penalties are more easily applied. The same is true of players who play at lightning speed the first card from dummy : it doesn't gain anything, causes unnecesary information and TD calls, and should be penalized if occurring in a regular manner. 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 Feb 26 03:22:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGMdP26681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:22:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGMUH26677 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:22:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PGCkT20765; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:12:46 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PGCfp06468; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:12:41 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:12:41 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Sven Pran , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225165354.00a912a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, > > > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > > > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? > > > >We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? (Instead of simply giving these 7 pairs a percentage score based on 24 boards with a 12 top and the 8th pair a percentage score based on 28 times and a 12 top.) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 03:26:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGPpC26696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:25:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGPhH26692 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:25:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-180-196.btinternet.com ([213.1.180.196] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fNnG-0004sA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:16:03 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:13:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change from claims, I thought I would ask a question. Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage of the number of match points it could have scored? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 03:27:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGRmM26708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:27:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGRdH26704 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:27:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2484.bb.online.no [80.212.217.180]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA05413; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:17:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c1be17$faaf4400$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225165354.00a912a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:17:52 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > At 16:01 25/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can > >remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" > >correctly although I have never heard it before, here we > >say "walk-over") > > AG : IIRC from table-tennis and other competitions, a player, pair or team > is given a walk-over when its opponent doesn't appear when called, and a > bye when the schedule doesn't give them any opponents for this round (ie as > a top seed they may skip the 1st round, or they're playing a round-robin > with an odd number of competitors). Which of thoses cases are included in > the term "sit-out" I'd like to know. > > Best regards, > > Alain. Confirming that I understood the term "sit-out" correctly. In Norway I have never heard any other term than "walk-over" for both cases, scheduled or not scheduled. And as already said: We do not care why a pair cannot play and make a score on one or more boards, as long as they are not at all at fault we award them (at least) 60% or their own average for the session, whichever is greater. I see no reason why not; if law 12 does not give the foundation for this law 88 certainly does - Period. 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 Feb 26 03:39:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGdjg26735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:39:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGdaH26731 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:39:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2720.bb.online.no [80.212.218.160]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA23474; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:29:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Alain Gottcheiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:29:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Alain Gottcheiner" Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > Sven, > > > > > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > > > > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? > > > > > >We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > > So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 > 4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, > you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? Why - certainly! That's the law. > > (Instead of simply giving these 7 pairs a percentage score based on 24 > boards with a 12 top and the 8th pair a percentage score based on 28 times > and a 12 top.) That would be correct only for those of the 7 pairs that score an average of more than 60%, but then they should have this average on their scheduled "walk-over". But what I do not understand here is why you "break" the session after 7 rounds instead of playing out the full Mitchell correctly with all 8 rounds, then there would be no such problem. Your example illustrates very well the importance of awarding a scores also to scheduled "walk-overs" in order to have their scores comparable to the rest of the field. 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 Feb 26 03:45:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGjaG26765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:45:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGjRH26761 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:45:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2891.bb.online.no [80.212.219.75]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA28622; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:35:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:35:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change > from claims, I thought I would ask a question. > > Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the > number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage > of the number of match points it could have scored? > > David Burn > London, England Simplicity - and Law 78A. Pretty often we present the final result list also with calculated percentages, but using percentages instead of integers for the individual boards would only create extra work and give no advantage. However, any SO is now permitted (Law 78D) to specify alternative scoring methods for events in its area. 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 Feb 26 03:50:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PGoEI26792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:50:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGo6H26788 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:50:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d269.iae.nl [212.61.5.15]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 53FD720F55 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:40:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <006e01c1be1a$f7a509e0$7f033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:38:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law88 only deals with the highness of the artificial adjusted score IN CASE there is one. Law 12C1 says: "When owing to an iregularity......". Is leaving the tournament because of a good reason an irregularity? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:28 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > ..... > > > L12C1 says "no result can be obtained". it is actually > > silent about a board not being played. > > Is it? Then why not look at Law 88? > > If all the pairs have a "sit-out" it obviously doesn't matter > for the final results which score if any is awarded to the > pair, but once you need an intermediate result or not all > the pairs have a "sit-out" it becomes neccessary to award > some score. > > And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can > remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" > correctly although I have never heard it before, here we > say "walk-over") > > > > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? > > We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > > > Then why should we do differently for a semi-sit-out ? > > I agree, we should do exactly the same - 60%. They > are unable to obtain a score, and they are in no way > responsible. > > ..... > > > We are not here to discuss the likelihood of it mattering. > > Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. > > I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who > > scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. > > The worst rules are those that are flexible, or bent, depending > upon how much they matter. As far as possible a rule should > be "blind", that is: The same rule for all comparable cases > regardless of whether they influence the final result or not (and > of course regardless of whether the affected parties are > "friendly" with the TD or not). > > 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 Feb 26 04:00:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PH03727494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGxoH27467 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:59:51 +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 RAA19845; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:49:21 +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 RAA02130; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225175251.009f3ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:54:06 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:13 25/02/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change >from claims, I thought I would ask a question. > >Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the >number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage >of the number of match points it could have scored? AG : would I dare say it is ? The programs we use here in Belgium do give the results as percentage. I suppose other do, too. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:00:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PH09D27506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:00:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PGxvH27484 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:59:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PGoET29242; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:14 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PGoDP06516; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:13 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:13 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > Just to say that this is open to interpretation. > > > > > We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? > > > > > > > >We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > > > > So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 > > 4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, > > you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? > > Why - certainly! That's the law. I disagree, you were never scheduled to play these boards, so why get a score on them? > > (Instead of simply giving these 7 pairs a percentage score based on 24 > > boards with a 12 top and the 8th pair a percentage score based on 28 times > > and a 12 top.) > > That would be correct only for those of the 7 pairs that score an > average of more than 60%, but then they should have this average on > their scheduled "walk-over". Yes, of course, but that wasn't the point. > But what I do not understand here is why you "break" the session after 7 > rounds instead of playing out the full Mitchell correctly with all 8 > rounds, then there would be no such problem. I can give a zillion reasons why one only wants to play only 28 instead of 32 boards, but this is completely besides the point. > Your example illustrates very well the importance of awarding a scores > also to scheduled "walk-overs" in order to have their scores comparable > to the rest of the field. In your method, the 7 pairs with a sit-out/walk over can score 24 x [0 ... 12] + 4 x 0.6 x 12 = 28.8 to 316.8 matchpoints out of a possible 28x12=336, or between 8.5% and 94.3%, the 8th pair can score anything between 0 and 336 or 0 and 100%. If one simply gives each pair a percentage based on the boards they actually played, everybody scores between 0 and 100%. The difference between 0 and 8.5% may not be that much, but consider a case where all pairs score approximately 50%. The pairs that have a sit-out, now suddenly get a percentage score of 24x6+28.8 = 51.4% but the (un)lucky pairs that got to play all rounds get 50%. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:03:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PH3Ph28031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:03:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PH3FH28006 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:03:15 +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 RAA20457; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:52:46 +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 RAA06063; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:53:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225175538.009f6ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:57:31 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> 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 17:29 25/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >But what I do not understand here is why you "break" the session after 7 >rounds >instead of playing out the full Mitchell correctly with all 8 rounds, then >there >would be no such problem. AG : I suppose this is because skip-Mitchells are much less fouled by errors than relay-Mitchells are. Anyway, if NS play 24 and EW play 28, and this can't be avoided in case of an odd number, you have to score as percentage when there are multiple sessions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:09:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PH8oG28882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:08:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PH8eH28862 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:08:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA21383; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:58:11 +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 RAA10890; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:58:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225175841.009f7a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:02:56 +0100 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Sven Pran From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:50 25/02/2002 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >The difference between 0 and 8.5% may not be that much, but consider a >case where all pairs score approximately 50%. The pairs that have a >sit-out, now suddenly get a percentage score of 24x6+28.8 = 51.4% but the >(un)lucky pairs that got to play all rounds get 50%. AG : there seems to have occurred a little misunderstanding here. When a pair plays less boards than others (or more, as in a skip-Mitchell), base your ranking on %, and everything is fine. But when a NO pair doesn't get to play boards that they had every right to play (retired pair, fouled boards, misseated pair) etc., 60% is what Doctor Lawbook prescribes. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:10:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHADZ29119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:10:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHA4H29091 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:10:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-164-42.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.164.42] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fOUC-0007Y5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:00:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:55:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > > Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the > > number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage > > of the number of match points it could have scored? > Simplicity - and Law 78A. But Law 78A, as far as I can see, says only that each contestant gets 2 things for a pair it beats, 1 thing for a pair it ties with, and 0 thing for a pair it loses to (where "thing" is one match point in some countries, half a match point in others). It says nothing about how many things you ought to get for boards you don't play - and quite rightly, since it ought to be obvious that you shouldn't get any. Law 88 and Law 12C relate to adjustments when players are compelled to take artificial adjusted scores, but I am not sure that they apply to cases where you can't play a board because there aren't enough players at the table. I suppose you could say that the players who aren't there have committed an irregularity by not being there when they should have been - but equally, you could say that Laws 12 and 88 are meant to apply only to cases in which four players attempted to obtain a result, but could not because of some mishap or misdemeanour during play. To use Herman's example: suppose I can't play four boards because my opponents have gone home, thinking the event was over a round earlier than it was. Suppose on the 24 boards I have played, I scored 140 match points out of 240 (58.3%). Well, I should finish ahead of pairs who scored 163/280 match points or fewer, and behind pairs who scored 164/280 or more. Instead, as I understand it, I am given 24 match points for the boards I didn't play, so that I finish level with pairs on 164 despite having performed worse. Now, I don't claim to understand very much about Neuberg, Aschermann, arrow switching, and all the other bizarre things that tournament directors do in order to make sure that players' scores do not reflect their actual performance. But I really do not see why it is that I should be given some wholly arbitrary number of match points for not doing anything, when the match points I scored on the boards where I did something are entirely adequate to provide a true measure of my performance relative to the rest of the field. 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 Feb 26 04:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHBLP29306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:11:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHBAH29283 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:11:11 +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 RAA06728; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:58:45 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA13952; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:05:27 +0100 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <006e01c1be1a$f7a509e0$7f033dd4@b0e7g1> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:38 25/02/2002 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >Law88 only deals with the highness of the artificial adjusted score IN CASE >there is one. >Law 12C1 says: "When owing to an iregularity......". >Is leaving the tournament because of a good reason an irregularity? AG : nope. But L88 exempts us of having to find any irregularity, since it doesn't mention there should be any. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:30:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHUSG01653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:30:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHUIH01630 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:30:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-7-57.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.7.57] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fOnn-0001Fj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:20:39 +0000 Message-ID: <3C7A7249.D57B3314@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:20:07 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "David Burn" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > > I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change > > from claims, I thought I would ask a question. > > > > Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the > > number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage > > of the number of match points it could have scored? > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > Simplicity - and Law 78A. Law 78A only specifies the method for scoring individual boards, not the method for totalling and placing. > > > Pretty often we present the final result list also with calculated > percentages, > but using percentages instead of integers for the individual boards would > only > create extra work and give no advantage. I don't think David suggested using percentages for the individual boards. > However, any SO is now permitted > (Law 78D) to specify alternative scoring methods for events in its area. > > regards Sven 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 Feb 26 04:41:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHfH403403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:41:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHf7H03386 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:41:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47655.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.39]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1PHVQ801869 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:31:26 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7A750B.5030306@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:31:55 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems we are on a different track here. In Norway, apparently, a bye (or whatever we call it) gets 60%. Then obviously so should a semi-bye. In most of the countries I know of, a bye scores nothing. There the question becomes interesting what to do with a semi-bye. Sven Pran wrote: > > And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can > remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" > correctly although I have never heard it before, here we > say "walk-over") > > > >>Just to say that this is open to interpretation. >>We don't give sit-outs 60%, do we ? >> > > We do in Norway (as I understand the term "sit-out") > > >>Then why should we do differently for a semi-sit-out ? >> > > -- 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 Feb 26 04:42:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHgjX03579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:42:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHgaH03562 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:42:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47655.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.39]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1PHWu803966 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:32:56 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:33:25 +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] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: >>>> >>So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 >>4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, >>you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? >> > > Why - certainly! That's the law. > No it's not - read L12 again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 04:46:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHkgr04292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:46:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHkXH04268 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:46:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-164-42.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.164.42] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fP3U-00043b-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:36:53 +0000 Message-ID: <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:34:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : nope. But L88 exempts us of having to find any irregularity, since it > doesn't mention there should be any. No, but it doesn't in any way countenance awarding matchpoints for unplayed boards. Nobody would be "required to take an artificial adjusted score" if the ranking list were determined simply on the basis of the quotient: [match points scored] / [match points available] for each pair. It doesn't really matter whether you express this as a percentage or a vulgar fraction, but most people find percentages rather easier to comprehend. Was Sven really saying that in Norway you get four 60% boards for being East-West in a movement with a half table? That seems even odder than some of the already odd stuff in this thread. 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 Feb 26 04:54:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PHshx05655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:54:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PHsXH05632 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:54:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1PHiqr14325; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:52 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:52 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1PHipW16754; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:51 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:51 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 RAA01903; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:51 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA21170; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:49 GMT Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:44:49 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202251744.RAA21170@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change > from claims, I thought I would ask a question. > > Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the > number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage > of the number of match points it could have scored? > > David Burn > London, England The reason (or if it is not reasonable, the excuse) for this is that boards are not always played the same number of times. So instead of the number of match points from each boards counting equally to a pair's overall score, the number of match points is "factored" so all boards have the same top*, then the factored match points are summed, and divided by (the number of boards times the common top). Robin * I say "factored" because there is an amount of adding and subtracting that goes on: factored_match_points = (match_points + 1)/top x common_top - 1 Just occassionally, top > common_top, so factored_match_points can be negative. In this case, the chief TD may be seen surreptiously checking the frequencies to make sure that any negative factored_match_point appears as 0.00 to two decimal places. -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 05:03:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PI2uW07161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:02:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PI2mH07142 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:02:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.69]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS3OCH00.1WS for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:53:05 +1000 Received: from KTPP-p-203-54-163-107.prem.tmns.net.au ([203.54.163.107]) by PSMAM01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 65/6477118); 26 Feb 2002 03:53:05 Message-ID: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:53:22 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. >I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who >scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. This seems a good time to introduce two real examples ... The Australian Mixed Pairs Final is a 2-session event. (1) In 1995, Kaoru Anderson and Len Colgan led after one session on 63%. Peter Gill and Merrilee Robb were near last on 42%. Before the 2nd session, Kaoru fell ill. Would your NCBO allow a sub? Anyway, in the 2nd session, there was a three board sitout due to the absence of Anderson - Colgan. During the break, Ishmael Del'monte taught Peter Gill how to play Mixed Pairs, so Gill - Robb scored 72% in the 2nd session, including 72% for their 3 board sitout, to win by one matchpoint. No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge. Is 72% correct for the three missed boards? Would it be fairer (not legal, but fairer) for Gill - Robb to receive 56% (their average over 2 sessions) for their three board sitout? (2) Same event, 1997. The Mixed Pairs Final is advertised to start at 10am. At the last minute, this is changed to 9-30am. One pair - Dick Cummings and Pamela Blinman - are not advised of this change, due to a mistake by the organisers. They arrive at 9-45am, to find that the reserve pair has played two hands in their place, scoring two bottoms against the eventual winners (the Barometer scoring made this apparent). The Regulations do not cover this situation. Cummings - Blinman are narrowly pipped by the pair who received two tops. More than 30 minutes (the Correction Period applicable) later, Cummings - Blinman discover that their late arrival is not their fault, and ask if anything can be done. Can it? They had not commented earlier as they had wrongly assumed that it was their error about the starting time. And how about if they discovered this in time? What should be done? Should the scores of the weak fill-in pair, whom the CTD had thought wou ld be playing in the event in the absence of a pair, count? Should A+ or A or A- be awarded? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 07:02:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PK21222897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:02:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PK1qH22893 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:01:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1OK8Bo09641 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:08:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:46:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@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 <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >I don't understand this one at all, but since it makes a welcome change >from claims, I thought I would ask a question. > >Why is a pair's score in a match-pointed pairs event not equal to the >number of match points it has actually scored, expressed as a percentage >of the number of match points it could have scored? David martin is of the view that it should be, but we still use "common top". Sit-outs are factored across the whole event if it's a multi- session one 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 Tue Feb 26 07:26:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PKPpI24430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:25:52 +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 ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PKPhH24416 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:25:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA27765 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA20485 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:16:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:16:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202252016.PAA20485@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" (quoting EK) > - gets a five heart response, decides against > bidding slam, and passes --- but his intended trump > suit is spades; he wakes up and corrects to five > spades but his pass stands: this was widely perceived > as overly harsh, producing too many non-bridge > results) and the current (i.e., 1987) lenient position that a call > may be substituted (offender is allowed to bid five > spades, barring partner: this is seen as overly > permissive, often letting an offender pay no real > penalty for his carelessness). (end quote) > I do > stress again that I am exploring possibilities, not > arguing for one thing or another. In that same spirit, is it proper and desirable that oppponents get no benefit from a player's mistake? In all other cases, whether bridge mistakes or mechanical errors or infractions, one side's loss is the other's gain. (Yes, there are some minor exceptions in L12C2 and 90/91.) I think this is a principle worth preserving because it is the very basis of duplicate bridge. My personal opinion on allowing changes is probably well known on BLML, but I'll state it again anyway. I think there ought to be some determinable moment before which changes are allowed and after which they are not. The player's reason for desiring to change ought not be a factor. My main reason is that this is a rule we could explain to the players and expect them to follow. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 08:50:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PLnqc01405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:49:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PLnjH01401 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:49:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS3YUP00.2IR for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:40:01 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-79-247.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.79.247]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 20/1959375); 26 Feb 2002 07:40:01 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020226083531.00b2acb0@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:39:59 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B In-Reply-To: <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> <000b01c1bdd0$d6e28060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM 25/02/02 +0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ "The last few Laws revisions have oscillated >between the severe position that a legal call must >stand once made (e.g. the offender uses Blackwood >- gets a five heart response, decides against >bidding slam, and passes --- but his intended trump >suit is spades; he wakes up and corrects to five >spades but his pass stands: this was widely perceived >as overly harsh, producing too many non-bridge >results) and the current lenient position that a call >may be substituted (offender is allowed to bid five >spades, barring partner: this is seen as overly >permissive, often letting an offender pay no real >penalty for his carelessness). The suggested change >is a compromise. Offender need not languish in an >absurd contract because of his momentary lapse, but >he must accept a losing result if elects to change the >call. Thus, he will not change lightly (e.g. a player >passes partner's three-notrump bid, then, before LHO >acts, changes his mind: "No, I guess I had better bid >four spades." Under the current Law, he can play in >four spades virtually without penalty; under the >projected Law, he may correct, but will almost surely >take his chances in the original three-notrump contract." > [June 15th 1994, Edgar Kaplan] Please keep L25B exactly as it is. It is so much fun. Perhaps we could surround it with a black box in memory of EK. I have had several rulings under this law recently and have almost learnt it by heart. The players gasp with amazement to find such a law on the books. Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 09:04:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PM4ZW01423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:04:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PM4RH01419 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:04:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id IAA19148; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:54:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma019146; Tue, 26 Feb 02 08:54:43 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id g1PLshM15149 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1PLshP15140; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:54:43 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.68]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA18123; Tue, 26 Feb 02 08:55:00 EST Message-Id: <085801c1be47$0f062160$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:54:54 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: T6 8 T9 AQJT9853 KJ532 AQ97 Q74 AKT62 876 KJ 42 76 84 J953 AQ5432 K N E S W 4C X 5C ? At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. There was no hint or otherwise by N that suggested he may have held otherwise. S then returned to the table. Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W doubled 5C and this became the final contract. East did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled off his C's and claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D finesse when W erred (a clear mistake) by pitching a D. EW weren't happy and stated . 1. N 'should' state that he has shown a strong 4H opening but he does not hold this hand. To state he held this hand categorically when his partner was away from the table was totally inappropriate. 2. S alerted N to his possible misbid when he said 'I may have got it wrong', I do not believe N had thought he had systemically shown H's until S had alerted him to the 4C opening having possibly another meaning. This was a clear infraction. N took advantage of S 'waking him up', without this wake-up N surely would have said 4C shows C's. How should you rule as director? [Using what laws?] Notes: - This is in Australia where the 4C opening is self alerting - This is a high level event (qualifying event for state teams) - The facts are 'second hand' and so there may be other information pertinant that is not provided. [Please ask if further information would be helpful.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 09:20:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PMKDJ01440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:20:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PMK4H01436 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:20:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0714.bb.online.no [80.212.210.202]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA01659; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:10:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001b01c1be49$34635660$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Alain Gottcheiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225175538.009f6ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:10:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > At 17:29 25/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >But what I do not understand here is why you "break" the session after 7 > >rounds > >instead of playing out the full Mitchell correctly with all 8 rounds, then > >there > >would be no such problem. > > AG : I suppose this is because skip-Mitchells are much less fouled by > errors than relay-Mitchells are. Anyway, if NS play 24 and EW play 28, and > this can't be avoided in case of an odd number, you have to score as > percentage when there are multiple sessions. Does this reveal that you violate the well know condition with standard Mitchell movements: Because you cannot compare NS and EW scores you have to score the two directions separately? (Separate groups) 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 Feb 26 09:34:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PMYOA01453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:34:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PMYFH01449 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0968.bb.online.no [80.212.211.200]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA16102; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:20:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002301c1be4a$aed5f780$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Peter Newman" , "BLML" References: <085801c1be47$0f062160$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:20:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Newman" > Hi All, > > The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: > T6 > 8 > T9 > AQJT9853 > KJ532 AQ97 > Q74 AKT62 > 876 KJ > 42 76 > 84 > J953 > AQ5432 > K > > N E S W > 4C X 5C ? > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was > absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. There was no hint or otherwise > by N that suggested he may have held otherwise. S then returned to the > table. > > Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W doubled 5C and this became > the final contract. East did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural > belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled off his C's and > claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D finesse when W erred (a clear mistake) by > pitching a D. > > EW weren't happy and stated > . > 1. N 'should' state that he has shown a strong 4H opening but he does not > hold this hand. To state he held this hand categorically when his partner > was away from the table was totally inappropriate. No, it was not, provided that really was the agreement between North and South. Any explanation shal reveal the agreements, not the actual hand. But North has some proving to do: Unless he can document that the agreement really is a strong 4H opening TD must base his ruling that North has shown a preempt in Clubs. > > 2. S alerted N to his possible misbid when he said 'I may have got it > wrong', I do not believe N had thought he had systemically shown H's until > S had alerted him to the 4C opening having possibly another meaning. This > was a clear infraction. N took advantage of S 'waking him up', without this > wake-up N surely would have said 4C shows C's. > > How should you rule as director? [Using what laws?] I would ask North and/or South to show some proof in the form of CC or other documentation that the explanation was correct. If they are unable to show such proof I would rule misinformation. Relevant are laws 40 and 75. > > Notes: > - This is in Australia where the 4C opening is self alerting > - This is a high level event (qualifying event for state teams) > - The facts are 'second hand' and so there may be other information > pertinant that is not provided. [Please ask if further information would be > helpful.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 09:49:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PMmop01470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:48:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PMmgH01466 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1259.bb.online.no [80.212.212.235]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA00447; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:38:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1be4d$33e9bcc0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:38:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Gill" > > This seems a good time to introduce two real examples ... > > The Australian Mixed Pairs Final is a 2-session event. > > (1) In 1995, Kaoru Anderson and Len Colgan led after one session > on 63%. Peter Gill and Merrilee Robb were near last on 42%. > > Before the 2nd session, Kaoru fell ill. Would your NCBO allow a sub? Yes, in Norway that would be OK. Kaoru preserves his rights to prizes etc. unless the sub plays more than half the total of boards in the tournament, that is (in this case) unless the second session comprises more boards than the first. > > Anyway, in the 2nd session, there was a three board sitout due to the > absence of Anderson - Colgan. During the break, Ishmael Del'monte taught > Peter Gill how to play Mixed Pairs, so Gill - Robb scored 72% > in the 2nd session, including 72% for their 3 board sitout, to win by > one matchpoint. No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge. > > Is 72% correct for the three missed boards? Yes, the average shall be computed over the session in which the artificially assigned score is to be awarded. > > Would it be fairer (not legal, but fairer) for Gill - Robb to receive > 56% (their average over 2 sessions) for their three board sitout? Thgis is a matter of opinion, but assuming that their "quality" in the first session was correctly expressed with their 42% score and their "quality" in the second session similarly is 72% I see no logical reason why a 72% compensation should be unfair. > > (2) Same event, 1997. The Mixed Pairs Final is advertised to start > at 10am. At the last minute, this is changed to 9-30am. One pair - Dick > Cummings and Pamela Blinman - are not advised of this change, due > to a mistake by the organisers. They arrive at 9-45am, to find that the > reserve pair has played two hands in their place, scoring two bottoms > against the eventual winners (the Barometer scoring made this > apparent). The Regulations do not cover this situation. I don't believe you will find any regulations anywhere that cover such errors by the organizers. The only fair way of treating this case had been to award Cummings/Blinman an artificially assigned score according to law 88, but let the opponents to the substituted pair during the first two hands keep their top scores. > > Cummings - Blinman are narrowly pipped by the pair who received two > tops. More than 30 minutes (the Correction Period applicable) later, > Cummings - Blinman discover that their late arrival is not their fault, > and ask if anything can be done. Can it? This is a technicality, but in my opinion they have lost their chance for correction. > They had not commented earlier as they had wrongly assumed that it > was their error about the starting time. Too bad. > > And how about if they discovered this in time? What should be done? > Should the scores of the weak fill-in pair, whom the CTD had thought > would be playing in the event in the absence of a pair, count? Should > A+ or A or A- be awarded? Answered above. 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 Feb 26 09:49:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PMnG101478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:49:16 +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 g1PMn6H01472 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:49:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g1PMdRJ16109 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:39:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004301c1be4d$480c2800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200202252016.PAA20485@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:37:22 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > In that same spirit, is it proper and desirable that oppponents get no > benefit from a player's mistake? In all other cases, whether bridge > mistakes or mechanical errors or infractions, one side's loss is the > other's gain. (Yes, there are some minor exceptions in L12C2 and > 90/91.) I think this is a principle worth preserving because it is the > very basis of duplicate bridge. Of contract bridge, actually, whether duplicate or rubber. There does seem to be a move afoot toward denying the NOS any benefit from an OS infraction. This is not in the spirit of the game. It is enough to give the NOS more benefit of doubt than the OS gets (e.g., L12C2), and to penalize only the OS only when an infraction could not possibly injure the NOS (e.g., L90, 91). 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 Feb 26 09:50:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PMoh701494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:50:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1PMoaH01490 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:50:36 +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 OAA23028; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:40:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200202252240.OAA23028@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:54:54 +1100." <085801c1be47$0f062160$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:40:58 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > Hi All, > > The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: > T6 > 8 > T9 > AQJT9853 > KJ532 AQ97 > Q74 AKT62 > 876 KJ > 42 76 > 84 > J953 > AQ5432 > K > > N E S W > 4C X 5C ? > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was > absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. There was no hint or otherwise > by N that suggested he may have held otherwise. S then returned to the > table. > > Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W doubled 5C and this became > the final contract. East did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural > belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled off his C's and > claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D finesse when W erred (a clear mistake) by > pitching a D. > > EW weren't happy and stated > . > 1. N 'should' state that he has shown a strong 4H opening but he does not > hold this hand. To state he held this hand categorically when his partner > was away from the table was totally inappropriate. E-W are wrong. Laws 40B and 75 make it clear that a partnership must make their agreements known to the opponents, but no law requires players to disclose their actual hand---nor is there a requirement that players must disclose that they forgot an agreement. Law 40A gives players the right to make bids not in accord with their system, whether intentionally or not. > 2. S alerted N to his possible misbid when he said 'I may have got it > wrong', I do not believe N had thought he had systemically shown H's until > S had alerted him to the 4C opening having possibly another meaning. This > was a clear infraction. N took advantage of S 'waking him up', without this > wake-up N surely would have said 4C shows C's. E-W are wrong again. Loosely speaking, players may not make any call or play based on unauthorized information (Law 16); but an explanation is not a call or play. Thus, if you have forgotten your agreement but have UI that tells you you've forgotten, you *must* explain your correct agreement to the opponents, even though this explanation is then based on UI. Of course, once you've explained the agreement correctly, you must then forget that you've done so and keep bidding and playing under the assumption that you've still forgotten your agreement. In this case, though, North clearly did not use UI in the remainder of the auction. > How should you rule as director? [Using what laws?] Score stands. No one has broken any laws. -- 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 Feb 26 10:23:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PNNOb01516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:23:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PNNFH01512 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1698.bb.online.no [80.212.214.162]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA21349; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:13:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004101c1be52$091ee560$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Burn" , "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:13:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Was Sven really saying that in Norway you get four 60% boards for being > East-West in a movement with a half table? That seems even odder than > some of the already odd stuff in this thread. It may be appropriate to point out that when we play Mitchell movements in Norway we adhere to the fundamental rule for Mitchell that the North-South players cannot be compared to the East-West players, and split the field into two groups, providing two ranking lists, one for all the North-South pairs and another one for all the East-West pairs. Leaving no problem with walk-over (or sit-outs) 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 Feb 26 10:25:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PNP7P01632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:25:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PNOvH01606 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:24:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1698.bb.online.no [80.212.214.162]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA25027; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:15:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:15:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>>> > >>So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 > >>4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, > >>you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? > >> > > > > Why - certainly! That's the law. > > > No it's not - read L12 again. Better read the definition of artificial assigned score in chapter 1 (e.g. means "for example") 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 Feb 26 10:34:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PNYBO03316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:34:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PNY2H03289 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:34:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1904.bb.online.no [80.212.215.112]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00441; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:24:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005c01c1be53$8bb8ed80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:24:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Ben Schelen wrote: > >Law88 only deals with the highness of the artificial adjusted score IN CASE > >there is one. > >Law 12C1 says: "When owing to an iregularity......". > >Is leaving the tournament because of a good reason an irregularity? > > AG : nope. But L88 exempts us of having to find any irregularity, since it > doesn't mention there should be any. And the definition of artificial adjusted score gives irregularity as a non- exclusive example of a reason for awarding such score. 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 Feb 26 10:38:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PNcWS04173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:38:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PNcMH04146 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:38:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2002.bb.online.no [80.212.215.210]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA26723; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:28:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006601c1be54$260cfc00$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" Cc: "Alain Gottcheiner" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:28:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 > > > 4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, > > > you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? > > > > Why - certainly! That's the law. > > I disagree, you were never scheduled to play these boards, so why get a > score on them? I am tempted to ask: When you have a "sit-out" and a pair shows up late, say after a couple of rounds have been played. Do you admit them to the vacant seats? What then with the scores for for the boards "that were never scheduled to be played" by certain pairs? 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 Feb 26 10:55:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1PNsso07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:54:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1PNsiH07223 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:54:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2215.bb.online.no [80.212.216.167]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15982 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:45:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00b401c1be56$70758760$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:45:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Walt Flory" > Interesting Sven. This is a new concept to me, but I cannot say that it is > either right or wrong. Just different. Sure would like to get a 60% score > for not playing some pairs, and would hate to settle for it for not playing > others. > > Walt Flory > I choose to comment here: What really surprises me with this thread is how many people (and organisations) apparently overlook the fact that when a pair receives no score for a board which they have not played (whether scheduled or not) that in itself is an artificial assigned score (of zero). Look up Chapter 1: Definitions, and you will see that (quote) an artificial assigned score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal) In my Webster's "e.g." is explained as an abbreviation for "exempli gratia" with the meaning "for example". Thus an "irregularity" is obviously not a prerequisite for an artificial assigned score, what is required is only that no score can be obtained or estimated, whatever the reason. Does this not cover the case of scheduled "sit-outs" as well as other cases of boards on which a score cannot be obtained? So I maintain that the only correct way of treating boards that have not been played by all participants, whatever the reason (provided the participants that has not played the boards are not at fault), is to apply Law88 (or law 86 in teams play). I accept that for simplicity in a completed, single-session event where all participants have the same number of unplayed boards you can strike the result on the respective unplayed boards for each pair with no consequence, but once the session is part of a greater arrangement you should fall back on the procedures prescribed in the laws. 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 Feb 26 11:35:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q0ZXf15294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:35:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q0ZMH15253 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-122.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.122]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B8B5776541 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:21:56 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:18:02 -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: <3C752F7D.6080009@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael writes: >OK, Bramble, >what about a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without >mentioning anything. >Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that >claimer miscounted them ? This is obviously a good point. If I accept, as I agree I must, that it is not "at all likely that claimer" has overlooked three missing trumps, then what about two? Whatever the answers to these questions, I am still not persuaded that when there is a single missing trump that we can say with any confidence that "it is not at all likely that it has been overlooked". I think much of the difference between our views reflects the environment in which we direct. In Herman's world, claimers seem happy to fling down their cards at the drop of a hat - claim first, think afterwards - and in this atmosphere little niceties like mentioning outstanding trumps may well be regarded as an irrelevance. In my (club level) world this just doesn't happen. Oh, for sure, the claimant will often have forgotten an outstanding trump or a high card in a side suit and often a claim will be followed, after a perceptible pause with "drawing trumps, of course", which will normally pass unchallenged. I cannot recall, however, a single occasion when I have been called to a table where the claimer has not mentioned drawing trumps, but insists that he had (of course) intended to. It is (in my world anyway) as natural to say "drawing trumps" (when appropriate) as to place trumps on the right when laying out dummy. In *this* environment therefore, failure to do should IMO be regarded as significant. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 11:36:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q0aid15515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:36:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g1Q0aTH15471 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:36:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.85.134] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fVSC-000B9q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:26:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c1be5c$b4c40b20$8655e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:28:40 -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: "Ben Schelen" ; "bridge-laws" ; "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > Was Sven really saying that in Norway you > get four 60% boards for being East-West > in a movement with a half table? That seems > even odder than some of the already odd > stuff in this thread. > +=+ I was trying not to put my head above the parapet on this subject. However, it has always been a source of surprise to me that pairs do not receive their session average on any boards they miss, subject to having played a given quota of boards. This is close to what DB is saying, I think? ~ 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 Feb 26 12:05:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q14LA20785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:04:22 +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-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 g1Q14BH20757 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:04:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.183] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fVt1-000F5O-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:54:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003601c1be60$93c0aba0$8655e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <00b401c1be56$70758760$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:54:01 -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 Submissions" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: Fw: [BLML] Scoring Problem > What really surprises me with this thread is how many > people (and organisations) apparently overlook the > fact that when a pair receives no score for a board > which they have not played (whether scheduled > or not) that in itself is an artificial assigned score (of zero). > > Look up Chapter 1: Definitions, and you will see that > (quote) an artificial assigned score is one awarded in > lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or > estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity > prevents play of a deal) > > In my Webster's "e.g." is explained as an abbreviation > for "exempli gratia" with the meaning "for example". Thus > an "irregularity" is obviously not a prerequisite for an > artificial assigned score, what is required is only that > no score can be obtained or estimated, whatever the > reason. > > Does this not cover the case of scheduled "sit-outs" > as well as other cases of boards on which a score > cannot be obtained? > +=+ Whilst an artificial adjusted score may or may not be defined in the above manner the argument skips an essential step. We need to find a law that provides for the award of an AAS to a pair that is scheduled to sit out a round. Law 12C1 will not do: that is expressly limited to circumstances occasioned by an irregularity. Law 12A2 seems to be stretched too much if it is said to justify the award to a sitting out pair who would not normally play the board(s). I conclude that the procedure is a method announced under Law 78D; SOs have free rein to do as they wish under this law. Er, .... what was the discussion about? ~ 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 Feb 26 12:43:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q1gkQ28432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:42:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1Q1gbH28406 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:42:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g1Q1WuJ03213; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:32:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007e01c1be65$849c61a0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Cc: References: <200202252240.OAA23028@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:32:46 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > Peter Newman wrote: > > > > > The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: > > T6 > > 8 > > T9 > > AQJT9853 > > KJ532 AQ97 > > Q74 AKT62 > > 876 KJ > > 42 76 > > 84 > > J953 > > AQ5432 > > K > > > > N E S W > > 4C X 5C ? > > > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while > >S was absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. There was no hint or > >otherwise by N that suggested he may have held otherwise. S then returned to > > the table. > > > > Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W doubled 5C and this became > > the final contract. East did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural > > belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled off his C's and > > claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D finesse when W erred (a clear mistake) by > > pitching a D. > > > > EW weren't happy and stated > > . > > 1. N 'should' state that he has shown a strong 4H opening but he does not > > hold this hand. To state he held this hand categorically when his partner > > was away from the table was totally inappropriate. > > E-W are wrong. Laws 40B and 75 make it clear that a partnership must > make their agreements known to the opponents, but no law requires > players to disclose their actual hand---nor is there a requirement > that players must disclose that they forgot an agreement. Law 40A > gives players the right to make bids not in accord with their system, > whether intentionally or not. > > > > 2. S alerted N to his possible misbid when he said 'I may have got it > > wrong', I do not believe N had thought he had systemically shown H's until > > S had alerted him to the 4C opening having possibly another meaning. This > > was a clear infraction. N took advantage of S 'waking him up', without this > > wake-up N surely would have said 4C shows C's. > > E-W are wrong again. Loosely speaking, players may not make any call > or play based on unauthorized information (Law 16); but an explanation > is not a call or play. Thus, if you have forgotten your agreement but > have UI that tells you you've forgotten, you *must* explain your > correct agreement to the opponents, even though this explanation is > then based on UI. Of course, once you've explained the agreement > correctly, you must then forget that you've done so and keep bidding > and playing under the assumption that you've still forgotten your > agreement. In this case, though, North clearly did not use UI in the > remainder of the auction. > > > Score stands. No one has broken any laws. > Adam is surely right, but we have the following from the ACBLLC (July 1997 minutes): ########## In response to questions from Management, the Laws Commission made the following clarifications: 3. Law 75.D.2 When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to correct the explanation before the defenders make an opening lead, ACBL may make it policy that the player should make a disclaimer statement before giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the one causing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. ########## I'm not sure I understand all that, but evidently North is expected to make a "disclaimer statement" in this case. Just what he is expected to say, I don't know. 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 Feb 26 13:41:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q2eYw09121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:40:34 +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 ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2ePH09087 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:40:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id VAA24986 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA22812 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:30:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:30:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202260230.VAA22812@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > And in Norway the rule has been 60% for as long as I can > remember.(I assume I understand the term "sit-out" > correctly although I have never heard it before, here we > say "walk-over") Just to clarify the terminology, we would normally use "sit-out" or "bye" when a contestant is not scheduled to play a particular round and "forfeit" or "walkover" when they are scheduled to play but fail to do so. (Of course the former term applies to the losers and the latter to the "winners" of the round.) There is no necessity that the scores should be the same for the two different situations of bye and walkover. In considering what to do, don't get diverted by a Mitchell being a two-winner movement. We could easily have a missing pair, either originally or by withdrawal, in a Howell or Scrambled Mitchell, and we have to do something. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 13:49:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q2ml210765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:48:47 +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 ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2mcH10745 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:48:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id VAA25122 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA22962 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:38:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:38:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202260238.VAA22962@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Newman" > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was > absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. As others have posted, the key question is what the NS agreement really was. No matter what it said on the CC, in view of the auction I am inclined to think that the true agreement was "clubs." Or if not, then perhaps "supposedly hearts, but he often forgets." Certainly both partners bid as though this was the case. If this is correct, then there's obvious MI. Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but I tend to give the actual bidding considerable weight, and it would take quite a lot of contrary evidence to convince me that the true agreement was "hearts." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 17:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q6JVT21320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:19:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q6JMH21294 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:19:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-183-185.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.183.185] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fany-0005Pg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:09:39 +0000 Message-ID: <006c01c1be8b$e4320720$b9b77ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200202260238.VAA22962@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:07:35 -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 Steve wrote: > As others have posted, the key question is what the NS agreement really > was. Quite so, but for a reason that may not have been apparent. I am not sure what "self-alerting" means - does it mean that East, when he doubled 4C, knew what North was later to tell West that it meant? Or does it mean that East was supposed to ask North what it meant before he doubled it? At any rate, it seems to me that East may have been under some misapprehension as to the significance of 4C before he doubled it. If that is so, there are grounds for considering that East-West might have been damaged because East's initial action was predicated on some misinformation as to the meaning of 4C in the North-South methods. > No matter what it said on the CC, in view of the auction I am inclined > to think that the true agreement was "clubs." You have just won the Herman de Wael School Prize for Muddle-Headed Thinking, previously won only by Herman de Wael, but that in the last seven consecutive years. If the convention card said that 4C showed hearts, then the North-South agreement for any and all ruling purposes is that 4C showed hearts. For either of North and South to tell anyone otherwise is misinformation; for either of them to tell anyone so is full discharge of their obligations under Law. I see no mention in the original post of any convention card, though, so perhaps this assertion is based on a later and purely hypothetical view. > Or if not, then perhaps > "supposedly hearts, but he often forgets." This belated attempt not to win the HdW Prize for M-H T has, after careful consideration, been rejected by the judges. If it really were the case that 4C showed hearts, I would want to know: (a) Did East know this before he doubled it? If he did not know, was this his fault or someone else's? If he doubled it knowing that it showed hearts, was this part of his side's agreed defence to Namyats? (b) What was West doing doubling 5C when he had no defence to 7C? If he was doing this purely because North had told him that he (North) had shown hearts and not clubs, was he not merely taking a double shot? Did West know that East thought that North had hearts? (again, I am not certain of what precise regulations were in force). But, if it were the case that: East's double of 4C was either: predicated on the correct information that 4C showed hearts, and was not part of his side's agreed methods over Namyats; or predicated on the incorrect assumption that it showed clubs when the onus was on East to ascertain what it actually showed; and if West's double of 5C was predicated on the hope that NS were in the middle of a misunderstanding, based only on South's remark, when West should have taken steps to protect himself against the mishap that actually occurred; then I would award -1150 to East-West, +1150 to North-South, less about a 53 IMP fine for not knowing what their opening bids meant. This appears to me a rather lenient procedural penalty for failure to comply with the principle of full disclosure. If you tell your opponents lies, thus crossing them up, in some recondite asking bid auction, that's fine if you can prove by chapter and verse that you weren't actually lying about the methods but about the bids. If you can't, of course, then may the Lord help you, for neither Steve Willner nor Herman de Wael nor I will. But if you stitch the opponents up by not knowing the meanings of your side's *opening bids*, for Pete's sake, then you just are not taking the game seriously. And although you may be entitled to keep whatever good score you fluke by staying within the laws on a particular deal, you are subject to penalty under Law 74B1. In my jurisdiction, I would use the powers vested in me to order your immediate execution. But this was Australia, where it is considered polite to forget things every now and again, so we'll let you off with minus 53 IMPs. And may God have mercy on what is left of your soul. 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 Feb 26 19:12:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q8ACj04824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:10:12 +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-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 g1Q8A3H04820 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:10:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.13.160] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fcS1-000L7S-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:55:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c1be9c$0f3e47c0$a00de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "BLML" Cc: References: <200202252240.OAA23028@mailhub.irvine.com> <007e01c1be65$849c61a0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:02:41 -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: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] > > > > Adam is surely right, but we have the following from the ACBLLC (July > 1997 minutes): > > ########## > In response to questions from Management, the Laws > Commission made the following clarifications: > > 3. Law 75.D.2 > > When a player's explanation has correctly described > his partner's hand but not the pair's agreement, and > even though the partner is required to correct the > explanation before the defenders make an opening > lead, ACBL may make it policy that the player should > make a disclaimer statement before giving the > corrected explanation. This may also be true when > there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If > no disclaimer is given, the director may treat the > original offense as the one causing the damage and > adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. > ########## > > I'm not sure I understand all that, but evidently North > is expected to make a "disclaimer statement" in this > case. Just what he is expected to say, I don't know. > +=+ When a player has two different explanations from opponents he is not in a position to judge which of them is explaining their methods correctly. If a player volunteers a correction but actually does not have the hand to match the correction he has merely given his opponent who relies on the 'correction' a free kick at the ball. There is a WBFLC minute: "A declarer or dummy who corrects his partner's explanation at the end of the auction must explain his partnership agreement. if his hand does not conform to the corrected explanation he must be especially careful to ensure that he is right in his understanding of his partnership agreements. Whilst no obligation exists he is free to be helpful to opponents with complete gratuitous information as to fact concerning his action (but not where such action is purposeful - e.g. psychic)." Where two explanations are given the Director may be expected to need convincing that there is 'agreement'. ~ 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 Feb 26 19:42:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q8gcx04851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:42:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q8gTH04847 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:42:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1Q8Whn10860; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:32:43 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1Q8WhJ17364; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:32:43 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:32:43 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <004101c1be52$091ee560$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "David Burn" > > > Was Sven really saying that in Norway you get four 60% boards for being > > East-West in a movement with a half table? That seems even odder than > > some of the already odd stuff in this thread. > > It may be appropriate to point out that when we play Mitchell movements > in Norway we adhere to the fundamental rule for Mitchell that the > North-South players cannot be compared to the East-West players, and > split the field into two groups, providing two ranking lists, one for > all the North-South pairs and another one for all the East-West pairs. > > Leaving no problem with walk-over (or sit-outs) This is only correct if the number of rounds is equal to the number of tables. This is not always the case. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 19:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q8h6j04863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:43:06 +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 g1Q8guH04855 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.231] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fd2w-000EDy-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:33:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c1bea0$a93a4e60$e706e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200202252240.OAA23028@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:33:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] > . > > > > Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W > > doubled 5C and this became the final contract. East > > did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural > > belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled > > off his C's and claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D > > finesse when W erred (a clear mistake) by pitching a D. > > +=+ Before we jump in with both feet here we do need to establish some facts. If N said he had shown a strong Heart holding, OK; but if he said that he had a strong heart holding this is a gratuitous statement, misleading to opponents. The fact that he has only been awakened to his misbid by partner's alert does not relieve him of the requirement that he speak correctly as to the meanings of calls; he is forbidden to act upon the UI himself - but that is not a material question here. More interesting is what meaning he has attributed to South's 5C bid, made opposite a strong heart suit. East might be expected to be suspicious of the alleged existence of a strong heart suit in North. A further question from East would seem called for. (Does 'strong' mean solid or nearly solid?) I am not impressed with his grounds for not leading a top heart when he chooses to remain blind on the point. Do I let the score stand and penalize North (heavily) only if he has made a misleading statement? Maybe. ~ 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 Feb 26 19:43:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q8hb604875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:43:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q8hSH04871 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:43:28 +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 g1Q8Wkc02732 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:32:52 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Feb 26 09:29:25 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KEQ47VJQWU000WFU@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:31:52 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:31:37 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:31:52 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: "'Marvin L. French'" , BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com 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: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Peter Newman wrote: > > > > > > > > The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: > > > T6 > > > 8 > > > T9 > > > AQJT9853 > > > KJ532 AQ97 > > > Q74 AKT62 > > > 876 KJ > > > 42 76 > > > 84 > > > J953 > > > AQ5432 > > > K > > > > > > N E S W > > > 4C X 5C ? > > > > > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > > > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got > it > > > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the > table, while > > >S was absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. This kind of irregularities causes a lot of problems and really frustrates our game. We need to have found a solution when presenting the new set of laws. Personally I am thinking of defining 'partnership agreement' more demanding than we use it now. If (in this case) north bids 4clubs apparently forgetting that it shows hearts and south adds that he isn't sure about it showing clubs we should be able to tell NS that they do not have a partnership agreement that allows them to give North's explanation. And the fact that it might be written on their conventioncard even doesn't proof the contrary. The problem is to find the balance. Not all mistakes can be treated as misexplanations, but we have to move somewhat. 'For a discrepancy between an explanation of a call and the actual holding to be considered a misbid a pair needs to be able to proof that the agreement is a stable part of the system.' This for example means that a recent change in the system and then making a 'misbid' should be treated as a misexplanation. The same when a pair is formed an hour before game and agrees to play some conventions. Then mistakes should be treated as misexplanations. A 2 clubs overcall after a 1 club opening showing at least 2 clubs with 12 -14 or just 16plus, which doesn't match with the explanation probably sould be treated as a misexplanation. We might need to add that a pair is not allowed to use conventions and their implications for the subsequent calls without being able to explain the meaning. A remark as 'we didn't discuss this' is unacceptable unless the situation is rare. If we don't add that the increase of that statement will be astonishing. Any ideas and suggestions? 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 Feb 26 19:46:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q8kPQ05318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:46:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q8kFH05295 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:46:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1Q8aUn12048; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:36:30 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1Q8aUL17368; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:36:30 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:36:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <006601c1be54$260cfc00$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > > So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 > > > > 4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one > direction, > > > > you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? > > > > > > Why - certainly! That's the law. > > > > I disagree, you were never scheduled to play these boards, so why get a > > score on them? > > I am tempted to ask: When you have a "sit-out" and a pair shows up late, > say after a couple of rounds have been played. Do you admit them to the > vacant seats? In club games: absolutely, players prefer to play over a sit-out. In a tournament or serious competition, probably not. > What then with the scores for for the boards "that were never scheduled > to be played" by certain pairs? The scores stand, with everybody getting a percentage score based on the board they actually played. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 20:15:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9EUF10682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:14:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9EJH10645 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:14:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1Q94Rg18312 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:04:27 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B4FBA.1040606@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:04:58 +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] Resolving a claim with 12 trumps References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: >>Herman De Wael writes: >> > >>OK, Bramble, >>what about a claim with 10 trumps (with AKQJ) without >>mentioning anything. >>Do you really believe it is a distinct possibility that >>claimer miscounted them ? >> > > This is obviously a good point. If I accept, as I agree I must, that it is > not "at all likely that claimer" has overlooked three missing trumps, then > what about two? Whatever the answers to these questions, I am still not > persuaded that when there is a single missing trump that we can say with any > confidence that "it is not at all likely that it has been overlooked". > > I think much of the difference between our views reflects the environment in > which we direct. In Herman's world, claimers seem happy to fling down > their cards at the drop of a hat - claim first, think afterwards - and in > this atmosphere little niceties like mentioning outstanding trumps may well > be regarded as an irrelevance. In my (club level) world this just doesn't > happen. Oh, for sure, the claimant will often have forgotten an > outstanding trump or a high card in a side suit and often a claim will be > followed, after a perceptible pause with "drawing trumps, of course", which > will normally pass unchallenged. I cannot recall, however, a single > occasion when I have been called to a table where the claimer has not > mentioned drawing trumps, but insists that he had (of course) intended to. > It is (in my world anyway) as natural to say "drawing trumps" (when > appropriate) as to place trumps on the right when laying out dummy. In > *this* environment therefore, failure to do should IMO be regarded as > significant. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > And I really believe that is why blml has problems with claims. In certain areas, claims are normally better accompanied with statements, and so the absense of a statement is evidence of something. In other areas, people are not as strict, and the absense of a particular mention does not mean anything. Perhaps that is the real lesson from blml. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Feb 26 20:17:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9Gwb11009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:16:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9GmH10979 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:16:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1Q975g21564 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:07:05 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:07:36 +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] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 >>>>4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one direction, >>>>you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? >>>> >>>> >>>Why - certainly! That's the law. >>> >>> >>No it's not - read L12 again. >> > > Better read the definition of artificial assigned score in chapter 1 > (e.g. means "for example") > yes, "irregularity prevents play of a deal". What's the irregularity in an odd number of contestants? Sorry Sven, but you cannot prove that the Norwegian way is the only correct one under the law as written. I'm not saying it's illegal (I do believe it's incorrect), but you cannot use the Law to declare all other countries illegal. > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 26 20:20:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9KCt11402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:20:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9K2H11383 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:20:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1Q9AJg25377 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:10:19 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B511A.90702@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:10:50 +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] Scoring Problem References: <006601c1be54$260cfc00$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Sven, that's exactly the problem that prompted this thread. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > >>>>So, if you have 15 pairs and decide to play a standard Mitchell with 7 >>>>4-board rounds (and 32 boards in play), with a sit-out in one >>>> > direction, > >>>>you give the 7 pairs that play only 6 rounds, 4x60% extra? >>>> >>>Why - certainly! That's the law. >>> >>I disagree, you were never scheduled to play these boards, so why get a >>score on them? >> > > I am tempted to ask: When you have a "sit-out" and a pair shows up late, > say after a couple of rounds have been played. Do you admit them to the > vacant seats? > Well, you might. Why not give the sit-outs an opponent if you can ? > What then with the scores for for the boards "that were never scheduled > to be played" by certain pairs? > I handle them in the same way as I do any other sit-out : no score. You would do the same : handle them in the same way as any other sit-out : Av+. I believe both these approaches are reasonably sensible, and my preference for mine over yours is unimportant. What I was arguing against in the start of this thread is that one would change the ruling from "no result" to "Av+" after admitting the extra pair. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 26 20:23:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9Msh11868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:22:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9MiH11840 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:22:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1Q9Cxg28508 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:12:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B51B9.1090107@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:13:29 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David is correct but for one small piece of mathematics. David Burn wrote: > > No, but it doesn't in any way countenance awarding matchpoints for > unplayed boards. Nobody would be "required to take an artificial > adjusted score" if the ranking list were determined simply on the basis > of the quotient: > > [match points scored] / [match points available] > It's actually not : (sum of matchpoints) divided by (sum of tops) but rather sum of (matchpoints divided by top on the board) the difference only occurs when different deals have different tops but it is quite important then. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 20:28:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9SDF12681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:28:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9S2H12640 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:28:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2460.bb.online.no [80.212.217.156]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA00518; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:17:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003b01c1bea6$6ee2f220$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , "BLML" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:17:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." > We might need to add that a pair is not allowed to use conventions and their > implications for the subsequent calls without being able to explain the > meaning. A remark as 'we didn't discuss this' is unacceptable unless the > situation is rare. If we don't add that the increase of that statement will > be astonishing. > > Any ideas and suggestions? Do you want to exclude "partnership intelligence" as a basis for calls in situations where "we did not discuss this" and ban attempts to solve a problem in the auction? Maybe you should look up the story by Ely Culbertson "Pass, the greatest in history" (if that is still told in the current versions of Encyclopedia of bridge) The auction which occurred in 1930 went (with Theodore A Lightner as dealer and Ely Culbertson as his partner): 1S - 5H - Pass! Lightner was able by deduction, not by agreement to deduce exactly what Culbertson had (and did not have), in fact a direct jump to the 5-level had never before occurred nor been discussed. Lightner correctly deduced that it was meant as a strong invitation to 6H but that the hand did not fit any of the established agreements for demand bids. When he eventually (in his mind) constructed a hand which would justify Culbertson's bid he found that Culbertson must hold something like xx / AKQxxxxxx / x / x which was exactly what he had. Lightners hand was: AKQJ52 / J / KQ2 / KJT This of course is an extreme case, but I do hope you don't want to close the door for such parts of the bridge? 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 Feb 26 20:28:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9STa12731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:28:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9SHH12695 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:28:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1Q9IWg05193 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:18:32 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B5306.6050600@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:19:02 +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] Scoring Problem References: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Herman de Wael wrote: > >>Of course when it matters, all hell will break loose. >>I would not like to come second on 58% behind someone who >>scored 57.8% + 4 boards unplayed and scored at 60%. >> > > This seems a good time to introduce two real examples ... > > The Australian Mixed Pairs Final is a 2-session event. > > (1) In 1995, Kaoru Anderson and Len Colgan led after one session > on 63%. Peter Gill and Merrilee Robb were near last on 42%. > > Before the 2nd session, Kaoru fell ill. Would your NCBO allow a sub? > > Anyway, in the 2nd session, there was a three board sitout due to the > absence of Anderson - Colgan. During the break, Ishmael Del'monte taught > Peter Gill how to play Mixed Pairs, so Gill - Robb scored 72% > in the 2nd session, including 72% for their 3 board sitout, to win by > one matchpoint. No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge. > > Is 72% correct for the three missed boards? > No it's not. The correct formula must be ((42*N1)+(72*N2))/(N1+N2) So the missed boards are "scored" at 56%, or rather are not scored at all. > Would it be fairer (not legal, but fairer) for Gill - Robb to receive > 56% (their average over 2 sessions) for their three board sitout? > > (2) Same event, 1997. The Mixed Pairs Final is advertised to start > at 10am. At the last minute, this is changed to 9-30am. One pair - Dick > Cummings and Pamela Blinman - are not advised of this change, due > to a mistake by the organisers. They arrive at 9-45am, to find that the > reserve pair has played two hands in their place, scoring two bottoms > against the eventual winners (the Barometer scoring made this > apparent). The Regulations do not cover this situation. > > Cummings - Blinman are narrowly pipped by the pair who received two > tops. More than 30 minutes (the Correction Period applicable) later, > Cummings - Blinman discover that their late arrival is not their fault, > and ask if anything can be done. Can it? They had not commented > earlier as they had wrongly assumed that it was their error about the > starting time. > I advise an IOC-type ruling : two gold medals. > And how about if they discovered this in time? What should be done? > Should the scores of the weak fill-in pair, whom the CTD had thought wou > ld be playing in the event in the absence of a pair, count? Should > A+ or A or A- be awarded? > I think the result of the reserve pair should stand. That means the late pair are correctly in silver. And if they can prove a case against the organizers, they should be recompensed for this. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 26 20:53:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1Q9r2s16618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:53:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1Q9qqH16591 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:52:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2721.bb.online.no [80.212.218.161]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA27802; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:43:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:43:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > > Better read the definition of artificial adjusted score in chapter 1 > > (e.g. means "for example") > > > > > yes, "irregularity prevents play of a deal". > What's the irregularity in an odd number of contestants? You did not read and understand it completely did you? "e.g." means "for example" (look it up in your dictionary) "e.g.,when an irregularity...." therefore does not limit the application of this definition to irregularities, it simply gives one example of when the definition applies. So this definition is applicable to all cases where a score must be assigned (adjusted) because no result can be obtained or estimated. And remember that not giving any score is equivalent to awarding an adjusted score of zero, which then is against Law 88 whenever the pair receiving such adjusted score is not at fault. > Sorry Sven, but you cannot prove that the Norwegian way is > the only correct one under the law as written. > I'm not saying it's illegal (I do believe it's incorrect), > but you cannot use the Law to declare all other countries > illegal. I wonder . . . . . (BTW is Norway really the only country doing it this way, excluding of course the cases when it does not matter at all because all pairs have the same number of un-played boards in a single-session event and no intermediate results are needed?) 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 Feb 26 21:01:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QA1ZH18111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:01:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QA1PH18096 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:01:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2851.bb.online.no [80.212.219.35]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA00463; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:51:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005501c1beab$2fc354e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3C7B5306.6050600@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:51:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ....... > > This seems a good time to introduce two real examples ... > > > > The Australian Mixed Pairs Final is a 2-session event. > > > > (1) In 1995, Kaoru Anderson and Len Colgan led after one session > > on 63%. Peter Gill and Merrilee Robb were near last on 42%. > > > > Before the 2nd session, Kaoru fell ill. Would your NCBO allow a sub? > > > > Anyway, in the 2nd session, there was a three board sitout due to the > > absence of Anderson - Colgan. During the break, Ishmael Del'monte taught > > Peter Gill how to play Mixed Pairs, so Gill - Robb scored 72% > > in the 2nd session, including 72% for their 3 board sitout, to win by > > one matchpoint. No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge. > > > > Is 72% correct for the three missed boards? > > > > > No it's not. > > The correct formula must be ((42*N1)+(72*N2))/(N1+N2) > So the missed boards are "scored" at 56%, or rather are not > scored at all. You cannot ignore Law88 here! The average for calculating the score on their unscheduled walk-over is their average in the session affected, not the whole event. They were indeed entitled to 72%! 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 Feb 26 21:29:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QATOJ23467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:29:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QATEH23447 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:29:15 +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 g1QAJXc02310 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:19:33 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Feb 26 11:16:11 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KEQ7XO1OGO000WJT@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:18:57 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:18:42 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:18:53 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: "'Sven Pran'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com 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." > > We might need to add that a pair is not allowed to use > conventions and > their > implications for the subsequent calls without being able to > explain the > meaning. A remark as 'we didn't discuss this' is > unacceptable unless the > situation is rare. If we don't add that the increase of > that statement > will > be astonishing. > > > > Any ideas and suggestions? > > Do you want to exclude "partnership intelligence" as a basis for calls > in situations where "we did not discuss this" and ban > attempts to solve > a problem in the auction? I believe that the answer to this question is in my statement: NO. I am talking about conventions and their implications in more or less general situations. A partnership should have discussed those. 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 Feb 26 21:39:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QAdMt25300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:39:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QAdAH25277 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:39:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1QATR318941 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:29:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3C7B51B9.1090107@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > It's actually not : > > (sum of matchpoints) divided by (sum of tops) > > but rather > > sum of (matchpoints divided by top on the board) > > the difference only occurs when different deals have > different tops but it is quite important then. Since I pointed out to David a potential flaw in the first formula it seems only fair to to criticise the alternative. In Herman's formula the board played 4 times seems overemphasised compared to the one play 10 times. Isn't there some reasonable statistical method for getting balance? 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 Feb 26 21:39:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QAdLf25298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:39:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QAd8H25274 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:39:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1QATPp18878 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:29:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > if the ranking list were determined simply on the basis > of the quotient: > > [match points scored] / [match points available] > > for each pair. Are we sure this is fair. Assume that board 1 is played 10 times while board ten is played 4 times. Wouldn't the score on board ten be somewhat irrelevant under this mechanism. 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 Feb 26 21:45:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QAihr25950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QAiXH25918 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:34 +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 LAA17238; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:02 +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 LAA11749; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020226113451.00a496d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:38:48 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200202252240.OAA23028@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 14:40 25/02/2002 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > The hand and auction, NIL VUL, North dealer: > > T6 > > 8 > > T9 > > AQJT9853 > > KJ532 AQ97 > > Q74 AKT62 > > 876 KJ > > 42 76 > > 84 > > J953 > > AQ5432 > > K > > > > N E S W > > 4C X 5C ? > > > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was > > absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. There was no hint or otherwise > > by N that suggested he may have held otherwise. S then returned to the > > table. > > > > Being told by N that he had a strong 4H opening W doubled 5C and this > became > > the final contract. East did not make his normal Heart lead in the natural > > belief the N had hearts. On a C lead declarer rattled off his C's and > > claimed 13 tricks (1150) via the D finesse when W erred (a clear > mistake) by > > pitching a D. > > > > EW weren't happy and stated > > . > > 1. N 'should' state that he has shown a strong 4H opening but he does not > > hold this hand. To state he held this hand categorically when his partner > > was away from the table was totally inappropriate. > >E-W are wrong. Laws 40B and 75 make it clear that a partnership must >make their agreements known to the opponents, but no law requires >players to disclose their actual hand---nor is there a requirement >that players must disclose that they forgot an agreement. Law 40A >gives players the right to make bids not in accord with their system, >whether intentionally or not. AG : it seems like NS didn't have a clear agreement on this one. North should then have, on request with South away from the table, explained as "well, I don't know really whether it's H or C, please look at our CC". He is not compelled to tell which one he holds really. What if North doesn't have any CC ? As always in this case he'll have to pay the price. But West was clearly indulging in double-shooting, and previous rulings, organizer's notices and posts on blml have established that this shouldn't go through. If NS's agreement was indeed H, maintain the score. If it was unclear, one can argue pro or contra MI and a change of NS's score, but EW's should surely stand at -1150. 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 Feb 26 22:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QBJnK02569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:19:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com (mailout10.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QBJdH02537 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:19:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16ffUb-0004WG-08; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:09:57 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.153.202]) by fwd06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16ffUP-1UcSKeC; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:09:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3C7B6CF8.8C4A06EA@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:09:44 +0100 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, after a long period of silence I finally come out of my shell. Sven Pran schrieb: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > > > Better read the definition of artificial adjusted score in chapter 1 > > > (e.g. means "for example") > > > > > > > > > yes, "irregularity prevents play of a deal". > > What's the irregularity in an odd number of contestants? > > You did not read and understand it completely did you? > > "e.g." means "for example" (look it up in your dictionary) > > "e.g.,when an irregularity...." therefore does not limit the > application of this definition to irregularities, it simply > gives one example of when the definition applies. > > So this definition is applicable to all cases where a score > must be assigned (adjusted) because no result can be > obtained or estimated. § 12 C 1 tell you when an artificial score is given ( this is what A+ is, isn`t it?) : "When, owing to an irregularity,...." . What`s left now? An odd number off pairs is not an irregularity, else any movement containing an odd number of pairs would be irregular, hence illegal, and the rules ( and common sense) would tell us so. What`s left to discuss is wether an "inadvertant" sit-out should be scored A+ or not at all, but A+ for a scheduled sit-out is completely out of the question. > And remember that not giving any score is equivalent to > awarding an adjusted score of zero, which then is against > Law 88 whenever the pair receiving such adjusted score > is not at fault. This is of course not so. I don`t give a score of 0 matchpoints, do I? I don`t give any score, since the board was not played by the pair in question. In the case of a pair leaving, for example, I may - depending on regulation - give A+ ( a pair leaving is an irregularity in my eyes) or give no score and compute the percentage accordingly, a solution I could live with, but german regulations tell me to give A+. > > Sorry Sven, but you cannot prove that the Norwegian way is > > the only correct one under the law as written. > > I'm not saying it's illegal (I do believe it's incorrect), > > but you cannot use the Law to declare all other countries > > illegal. > > I wonder . . . . . > > (BTW is Norway really the only country doing it this way, > excluding of course the cases when it does not matter at all > because all pairs have the same number of un-played boards > in a single-session event and no intermediate results are needed?) I don`t really know, there being many countries where brige is played. What I do know is that haven`t heard of a country ( except Norway, of course) where it is done the norwegian way. Doesn`t prove much, really. > Sven > Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 26 22:27:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QBRPR03933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QBRGH03905 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:27:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1QBHXg24952 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:17:33 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B6EEC.1000602@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:18:04 +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] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Sven, you have a very particular grasp of the English language. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>>Better read the definition of artificial adjusted score in chapter 1 >>>(e.g. means "for example") >>> >>> >> >>yes, "irregularity prevents play of a deal". >>What's the irregularity in an odd number of contestants? >> > > You did not read and understand it completely did you? > > "e.g." means "for example" (look it up in your dictionary) > Yes, so this means that the same method can also be used in different circumstances. Surely that is not the same as saying that it MUST be used in those other circumstances ? > "e.g.,when an irregularity...." therefore does not limit the > application of this definition to irregularities, it simply > gives one example of when the definition applies. > Yes, but that does not mean it is also of application in all other cases ? > So this definition is applicable to all cases where a score > must be assigned (adjusted) because no result can be > obtained or estimated. > The definition is applicable. yes. IF the TD awards a score in this particular case, by definition such a score is an adjusted score (and therefore several laws apply to this, such as L88). Notice the capitalization of IF. In Norway, you do award a score in this case, so it the definition applies. But that does NOT mean that I, in Belgium, have to award a score in the same case. Look Sven, I am merely trying to point out to you that the Norwegian way is NOT the only correct way as prescribed by TFLB. > And remember that not giving any score is equivalent to > awarding an adjusted score of zero, which then is against > Law 88 whenever the pair receiving such adjusted score > is not at fault. > No, not giving any score is not giving any score. I don't award you any score on board 973 of yesterday's session, since you did not play that board. Seems a silly argument, but nevertheless a true one. Try an incomplete Mitchell if you don't see what I mean. If you schedule to play just 9 rounds of a 13-table Mitchell, the pair at NS table 1 will not play boards 28-39. They don't get any score for these boards. No Av+, nothing. If in addition there is no pair EW13, NS1 will not play boards 4-6 (that's in round 2) either. If you want, you can give them Av+ on those 3 boards, but don't try and convince the world that this is because the Lawbook tells you to do this or be prepared to also award Av+ on boards 28-39. (but maybe that is the regulation in Norway as well) > >>Sorry Sven, but you cannot prove that the Norwegian way is >>the only correct one under the law as written. >>I'm not saying it's illegal (I do believe it's incorrect), >>but you cannot use the Law to declare all other countries >>illegal. >> > > I wonder . . . . . > > (BTW is Norway really the only country doing it this way, > excluding of course the cases when it does not matter at all > because all pairs have the same number of un-played boards > in a single-session event and no intermediate results are needed?) > Well, I certainly never heard of a country doing it that way. I know of clubs and programs who have done it that way, but never a whole country. > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 26 22:29:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QBT5F04232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:29:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QBSuH04208 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:28:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1QBJEg26932 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:19:14 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B6F50.9000409@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:19:44 +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] Scoring Problem References: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3C7B5306.6050600@village.uunet.be> <005501c1beab$2fc354e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ....... > >>>This seems a good time to introduce two real examples ... >>> >>>The Australian Mixed Pairs Final is a 2-session event. >>> >>>(1) In 1995, Kaoru Anderson and Len Colgan led after one session >>> on 63%. Peter Gill and Merrilee Robb were near last on 42%. >>> >>>Before the 2nd session, Kaoru fell ill. Would your NCBO allow a sub? >>> >>>Anyway, in the 2nd session, there was a three board sitout due to the >>>absence of Anderson - Colgan. During the break, Ishmael Del'monte taught >>>Peter Gill how to play Mixed Pairs, so Gill - Robb scored 72% >>>in the 2nd session, including 72% for their 3 board sitout, to win by >>>one matchpoint. No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge. >>> >>>Is 72% correct for the three missed boards? >>> >>> >> >>No it's not. >> >>The correct formula must be ((42*N1)+(72*N2))/(N1+N2) >>So the missed boards are "scored" at 56%, or rather are not >>scored at all. >> > > You cannot ignore Law88 here! The average for calculating the > score on their unscheduled walk-over is their average in the session > affected, not the whole event. They were indeed entitled to 72%! > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for those boards, that means 72%. But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they indeed said this, they are not fair. > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 26 22:30:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QBU7304410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:30:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QBTwH04388 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:29:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48646.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1QBKHg28198 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:17 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7B6F8F.5010800@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:47 +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] Scoring Problem References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3C7B51B9.1090107@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > > >>It's actually not : >> >> (sum of matchpoints) divided by (sum of tops) >> >>but rather >> >> sum of (matchpoints divided by top on the board) >> >>the difference only occurs when different deals have >>different tops but it is quite important then. >> > > Since I pointed out to David a potential flaw in the first formula it > seems only fair to to criticise the alternative. In Herman's formula the > board played 4 times seems overemphasised compared to the one play 10 > times. > > Isn't there some reasonable statistical method for getting balance? > Yes, Neuberg ! > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 26 22:44:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QBiCX06912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:44:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QBi2H06881 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:44:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3922.bb.online.no [80.212.223.82]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07206; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:34:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009701c1beb9$85b5dcc0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00b401c1be25$51987d60$6ba336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3C7B5306.6050600@village.uunet.be> <005501c1beab$2fc354e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B6F50.9000409@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:34:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ..... >From the original post: > >>> No special regulations apply - just the Laws of Bridge ...... > > You cannot ignore Law88 here! The average for calculating the > > score on their unscheduled walk-over is their average in the session > > affected, not the whole event. They were indeed entitled to 72%! > > > > > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for > those boards, that means 72%. > But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they > indeed said this, they are not fair. Your opinion, in disagreement with the Laws (And I have previously demonstrated the reason why I agree with the law as being fair) 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 Feb 26 23:23:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QCMTe13034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:22:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QCMIH12998 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:22:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16fgT8-0002eu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:12:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:55:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B References: <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> <000b01c1bdd0$d6e28060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ "The last few Laws revisions have oscillated >between the severe position that a legal call must >stand once made (e.g. the offender uses Blackwood >- gets a five heart response, decides against >bidding slam, and passes --- but his intended trump >suit is spades; he wakes up and corrects to five >spades but his pass stands: this was widely perceived >as overly harsh, producing too many non-bridge >results) and the current lenient position that a call >may be substituted (offender is allowed to bid five >spades, barring partner: this is seen as overly >permissive, often letting an offender pay no real >penalty for his carelessness). I wonder about "widely seen". I do not believe that the average player sees any change of mind as permitted by the Laws and I very much doubt that the average players thinks it should be. This is very much an experienced players Law. But the thing I really dislike about the above arguments is that stupidities in play produce *bridge* results, because that is what bridge is all about: L25B is designed to avoid bridge results in favour of artificial results. I think the day of this Law should be numbered. Complicated compromises are no help: they just extend a wrong principle and inexperienced players suffer. At the WBFLC meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Mr Santanu Ghosh asked that the committee should continue to have as an objective that players who are inexperienced and do not know the laws shall enjoy the same basic rights as more knowledgeable players. It should seek to avoid possibilities for knowledgeable players to take quick thinking action that will prejudice the rights of inexperienced opponents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with this principle, and L25B is against what Mr Santanu Ghosh wants. -- 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 Feb 26 23:34:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QCXf214299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QCXVH14265 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0512.bb.online.no [80.212.210.0]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA15888; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:23:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00a101c1bec0$6ea6ada0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225165354.00a912a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c1be17$faaf4400$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <00a801c1beb7$fb5922e0$42033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:23:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ben Schelen" > Sven, > > Have you ever heard of the book MOVEMENTS- a fair approach? It is written by > Hans-Olof Hallen, Olof Hanner & Per Jannersten. This seems to be an English version of "Tävlingsledaren" ("The Tournament Director") issued in 1990 which is a "bible" for arrangements here. Yes I have that one. > On page 589 it deals with compensation for sit-out. > I think that the term is well-known in Scandinavia. In my copy they have written (my translation): Compensation for free round: If all participants have played the same number of deals you do not need to compensate for their free rounds. If intermediate results are to be reported (e.g. Barometer* or event over multiple sessions) then it is convenient to award average (or 60%) for free round {* Note: Barometer is the commonly used term for events where all pairs play the same boards in the same round (usually 2 to 4 boards) and intermediate results are produced ASAP, usually within the following round. I don't know if this term is known outside Scandinavia.} Hallen continues with describing the adjustment of scores when different pairs according to schedule have played a different number of boards, the essence here is to adjust their scores proportionally according to the number of boards played. I am not convinced this is correct under the laws as they stand, and neither do I know any computer program used for Bridge in Scandinavia that uses this method. (Of course such programs may still exist and be in use). The most commonly used computer programs in Norway all calculate scores in score units relative to average, and they offer the scorer the option to select either average or a certain percentage (usually 60% which is then converted by the program to score units) to pair(s) that for some reason cannot be given a regular score - for instance due to scheduled walk-overs. > Besides that they describe the method mentioned by Henk Uijterwaal. That is > the method adviced and used in the Netherlands and worked out with Neuberg > or Aschermann. A side note: An interesting feature of calculating all scores relative to average is, if I have understood the Neuberg and Aschermann formulae correct, that these two formulae become identical! By the way, for consistency on scoring "sit-outs", how do you handle teams events with an odd number of participating teams? Do you say that scheduled sit-outs get no scores, or do you award them the 17 VP which is customary in Norway (with 0-0 IMP)? Whatever the answer - under which law of bridge? 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 Feb 27 00:09:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QD96g21344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QD8fH21283 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:08:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-174-55.btinternet.com ([213.1.174.55] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fhC7-0003pu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:59:00 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01c1bec5$13e82420$37ae01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:56:57 -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 Tim wrote: > > if the ranking list were determined simply on the basis > > of the quotient: > > > > [match points scored] / [match points available] > > > > for each pair. > > Are we sure this is fair. Assume that board 1 is played 10 times while > board ten is played 4 times. Wouldn't the score on board ten be somewhat > irrelevant under this mechanism. Perhaps. One does assume, however, that an event is being run by tournament directors and not jackasses. I am informed that the difference has now been formally recognised, at least by the WBF and the ACBL. 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 Feb 27 00:50:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QDnfT29583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:49:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QDnVH29551 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:49:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1QDdnu16065 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:39:49 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:39 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <003a01c1bec5$13e82420$37ae01d5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > > Are we sure this is fair. Assume that board 1 is played 10 times > > while board ten is played 4 times. Wouldn't the score on board ten be > > somewhat irrelevant under this mechanism. > > Perhaps. One does assume, however, that an event is being run by > tournament directors and not jackasses. I am informed that the > difference has now been formally recognised, at least by the WBF and the > ACBL. But not apparently by the EBU. The approximate situation above is not uncommon on EBUOnline (www.ebuonline.co.uk). A site run with the approval of and masterpoints from the EBU so I don't see why you should dismiss the question about fairness as stupid/irrelevant. 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 Feb 27 01:01:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QE1ON01891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:01:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g1QE1EH01861 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:01:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16fi0k-000IEl-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:51:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:51:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@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 >Now, I don't claim to understand very much about Neuberg, Aschermann, >arrow switching, and all the other bizarre things that tournament >directors do in order to make sure that players' scores do not reflect >their actual performance. But I really do not see why it is that I >should be given some wholly arbitrary number of match points for not >doing anything, when the match points I scored on the boards where I did >something are entirely adequate to provide a true measure of my >performance relative to the rest of the field. Suppose you estimate that you are running at 58%, and need to go a bit on the last round to win. You duly play the last four boards in an exciting style, and get your score up to 61% - just enough to win. Well done that man! But your chance to do this has been removed by the pair leaving early. The score you get given on such boards reflects a compromise for the chance you might have had to get a good score thereon. What is different if you are sitting out the last round? Then you knew that you were playing the last round before that last round [I know, I have just re-read this: ok, you know what I mean even if I have written it ridiculously] and should not be trying to win it then. There seems a difference to me between a board you were never intended to play, and a board that has been taken away from you through someone else's fault. -- 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 Feb 27 01:04:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QE3vj02384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:03:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QE3nH02368 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:03:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16fi3U-00009B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:54:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020226083552.00b09c60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:55:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] 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 05:18 AM 2/26/02, Kooijman wrote: > > Do you want to exclude "partnership intelligence" as a basis for calls > > in situations where "we did not discuss this" and ban > > attempts to solve > > a problem in the auction? > >I believe that the answer to this question is in my statement: NO. I am >talking about conventions and their implications in more or less general >situations. A partnership should have discussed those. We need to recognize that the more experienced the partnership, the more of those they will have discussed. So "more or less general" must become "more" for some, "less" for others. You can't make the remark "we haven't discussed this" rarer than the truth it represents, and that truth is relatively pervasive below the top level. We have enough trouble now with "class of player". Do we really want to add "level of experience of partnership with system" to the list of things we are forced to make subjective findings about? If there is one thing that really will change the game of duplicate bridge beyond recognition, it is the notion of making it illegal for a player, or a partnership, not to know what they're doing. If we discourage ignorant novices when they're starting out -- and being "ruled against" for the crime of not knowing how to bid correctly will surely do that -- where will our experienced experts come from? Trying on conventions without (yet) understanding their implications for more general situations is an important part of learning the game; it should be encouraged, not outlawed. The laws must recognize that floundering around in ignorance is a necessary component of learning from experience. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 27 01:49:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QEn4w10833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:49:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QEmsH10808 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:48:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-117-74.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.117.74] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fil3-0005Yu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c1bed3$11da9880$4a757ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:37:06 -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 > > > Are we sure this is fair. Assume that board 1 is played 10 times > > > while board ten is played 4 times. Wouldn't the score on board ten be > > > somewhat irrelevant under this mechanism. > > > > Perhaps. One does assume, however, that an event is being run by > > tournament directors and not jackasses. I am informed that the > > difference has now been formally recognised, at least by the WBF and the > > ACBL. > > But not apparently by the EBU. The approximate situation above is not > uncommon on EBUOnline (www.ebuonline.co.uk). A site run with the approval > of and masterpoints from the EBU so I don't see why you should dismiss the > question about fairness as stupid/irrelevant. Online masterpoints are stupid and irrelevant, so the question does not really arise in that context. Of course, in real life there are going to be situations in which boards get played a ridiculously low number of times compared with other boards. It frequently happens at my club, for example, that there are two sections, one of nine tables and the other of fourteen. Board 28 won't get played as often as the others, for obvious reasons, and something has to be done to take account of that. If Neuberging or Aschermanning or Rumpelstiltskining is what the professors of mathematics have decided should be done, then let it be done. But don't let it be done to half the blasted boards in an event just because someone's been taken ill. Let it be done to the minimum conceivable number of boards, and only in unavoidable exceptional circumstances. Because although it may be as fair as possible, in the end it is not fair, and in the ideal world it should not happen. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 02:53:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QFr4b23457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:53:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QFqtH23437 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-16-229.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.16.229] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16fjl2-0003SY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c1bedc$04d5fd60$e5107ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:41:10 -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 you estimate that you are running at 58%, and need to go a bit > on the last round to win. You duly play the last four boards in an > exciting style, and get your score up to 61% - just enough to win. Well > done that man! > > But your chance to do this has been removed by the pair leaving early. > The score you get given on such boards reflects a compromise for the > chance you might have had to get a good score thereon. Indeed. The 60% score I get on these boards reflects the desire of officials everywhere to keep me happy, rather than to run a proper competition with proper rules. There is no earthly reason why, in the common cases where artificial adjusted scores occur these should not simply be your session average, or (to reflect expectation) some function of the session averages of you and your opponents. If in the process of necessitating an artificial adjusted score you have done something wrong, then you should be penalised in line with the seriousness of your offence. But we don't do that - we give "60-40" adjustments, and so attractive is the simplicity of this non-judgement, so grateful are players to receive a lot of match points for doing nothing, that we dish out these adjustments even when we manifestly should not, but assign a score or combination of scores instead. > What is different if you are sitting out the last round? Then you > knew that you were playing the last round before that last round [I > know, I have just re-read this: ok, you know what I mean even if I have > written it ridiculously] and should not be trying to win it then. There > seems a difference to me between a board you were never intended to > play, and a board that has been taken away from you through someone > else's fault. I can see the argument, and the difference you express is a real one. But it is not, in my view, real enough to justify the awarding of match points on a board to someone who has not touched the cards of that board. A propos of which, has anyone noticed that although thanks to the amendment of Law 6D duplicate bridge is no longer illegal, it is still quite difficult. Law 7B2 provides that during play, no one may touch cards other than his own. Well, I am fairly sure that all the cards I touched last weekend belonged to the Welsh Bridge Union. They certainly weren't mine. 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 Feb 27 06:02:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QJ1Sf27289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:01:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QJ1JH27266 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:01:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF716N; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:51:37 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020226134954.00acc2e0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:51:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] In-Reply-To: <200202260238.VAA22962@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 Fair enough. Well said, Steve. Walt Flory At 09:38 PM 2/25/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Peter Newman" > > At this point W asked for an explanation of the NS auction. > > S at first said N had a club preempt but then said 'I may have got it > > wrong'. W called the director who asked S to leave the table, while S was > > absent N said he had a 'strong 4H opening'. > >As others have posted, the key question is what the NS agreement really >was. > >No matter what it said on the CC, in view of the auction I am inclined >to think that the true agreement was "clubs." Or if not, then perhaps >"supposedly hearts, but he often forgets." Certainly both partners >bid as though this was the case. If this is correct, then there's >obvious MI. > >Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but I tend to give the actual bidding >considerable weight, and it would take quite a lot of contrary evidence >to convince me that the true agreement was "hearts." > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 27 06:09:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QJ92Z28650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:09:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QJ8qH28617 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:08:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF716V; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:59:11 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020226135436.02722c50@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:58:57 -0500 To: "David Burn" , From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] In-Reply-To: <006c01c1be8b$e4320720$b9b77ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200202260238.VAA22962@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 David Wouldn't you want to know both what the formal partnership agreement was, and what his partner knew (from experience) that it might be? In this case partner may not be sure what the opener has and telling you only what the formal agreement is would be less than "full disclosure" in my mind. Walt Flory At 06:07 AM 2/26/02 +0000, David Burn wrote: > > Or if not, then perhaps > > "supposedly hearts, but he often forgets." >This belated attempt not to win the HdW Prize for M-H T has, after >careful consideration, been rejected by the judges. > >If it really were the case that 4C showed hearts, I would want to know: -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 06:22:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QJMJ201234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:22:19 +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 g1QJM2H01192 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:22:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QJBae12107; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:11:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020226130610.00a58df0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:09 -0600 To: David Stevenson From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: "Substitute" was Re: [BLML] Law 25B Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> <001801c1b5f8$6e7eb8c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <007a01c1bd34$3c83bc60$8c02e150@dodona> <001001c1bdce$a815d400$5403e150@dodona> <000b01c1bdd0$d6e28060$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000601c1be0e$de77d760$1b0ce150@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:55 PM 2/25/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ "The last few Laws revisions have oscillated > >between the severe position that a legal call must > >stand once made (e.g. the offender uses Blackwood > >- gets a five heart response, decides against > >bidding slam, and passes --- but his intended trump > >suit is spades; he wakes up and corrects to five > >spades but his pass stands: this was widely perceived > >as overly harsh, producing too many non-bridge > >results) and the current lenient position that a call > >may be substituted (offender is allowed to bid five > >spades, barring partner: this is seen as overly > >permissive, often letting an offender pay no real > >penalty for his carelessness). > > I wonder about "widely seen". I do not believe that the average >player sees any change of mind as permitted by the Laws and I very much >doubt that the average players thinks it should be. This is very much >an experienced players Law. I was recently playing with a very experienced pick-up partner. She was worrying about the bidding on the previous hand, and picked up a 19-count with 6 nice spades. Debating with herself about how to bid the hand, while still worried about whether she had been right to pass on the hand before, she reached into the box...and pulled out a Pass card. She realized immediately that this was a stupid call, but of course she had no idea she could change it. I passed my flat 10-count in 4th seat, and so our cold spade slam was passed out for a zero. As soon as I passed, she said "I knew right away I had messed up, but I knew I couldn't change it." I started to tell her that she _could_, in fact, have changed it... but I stopped myself. Better that she not know. The fewer people that know about this thing, the better. > But the thing I really dislike about the above arguments is that >stupidities in play produce *bridge* results, because that is what >bridge is all about: L25B is designed to avoid bridge results in favour >of artificial results. I agree completely. L25_A_ produces recognizable bridge results in what is, I think, a very desireable way. If you wish to extend something like it to cases where a call is obscured on a tray or something, fine. But please, please, let L25B die. The sooner the better...since hardly anyone knows the law is there, deleting it will produce little disruption. > I think the day of this Law should be numbered. Complicated >compromises are no help: they just extend a wrong principle and >inexperienced players suffer. Amen, brother. >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 Wed Feb 27 06:38:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QJc2d04348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:38:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QJbqH04321 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:37:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1QJS8W14214 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:28:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000f01c1bedc$04d5fd60$e5107ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > Well, I am fairly sure that all the cards I > touched last weekend belonged to the Welsh Bridge Union. They certainly > weren't mine. My understanding was that some players in the WBU provided their own cards in order to avoid this problem. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 07:05:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QK4mB09597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:04:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QK4cH09569 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:04:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1QJsu400093 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:54:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3C7B6F50.9000409@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for > those boards, that means 72%. > But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they > indeed said this, they are not fair. It does not appear manifestly unfair to me. It just feels right that any score awarded reflects the current session rather than many. With two "equal" sessions it seems reasonable to average the percentages obtained in each to get an overall score. 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 Feb 27 08:39:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QLd2f26582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:39:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1QLcrH26551 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:38:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id IAA00597; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:29:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma000593; Wed, 27 Feb 02 08:29:05 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id g1QLT5T09522 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1QLT4009510; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:29:04 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.68]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA21623; Wed, 27 Feb 02 08:29:21 EST Message-Id: <0e7601c1bf0c$9e57c6f0$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <200202260238.VAA22962@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020226135436.02722c50@mail.fscv.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:29:05 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, Thanks for the answers so far. In answer to some queries... - 'Self Alerting' means that the bid is made with an assumed alert - ie you may have to ask its meaning - this applies to all doubles, cue bids and bids over 3NT in Australia [This case demonstrates that you should ask - or look at the opponents system card in the pre-alert section] - The Convention Card was on the table (underneath a bidding box)...it appears no-one looked at it until after the director was called. It confirmed that the agreement was NAMYATS. Some comments of my own: - It appears that legally NS did nothing wrong (assuming you decide their agreement is NAMYATS). They just fell on their feet. N did not (as is his right) follow the Active Ethics principle of adding a disclaimer when partner was absent to say 'I have shown this hand but don't have it'. As an aside should we be encouraging people to follow Active Ethics? - It seems that if East had asked what 5C was before leading he may well have found out that North had psyched (it is likely that 5C systemically would be a denial cue bid not natural - this is hard to judge given NS didn't know their system well) and led better. - The CC said NAMYATS but both N and S bid as if 4C was natural. I assume it is up to the director to determine what the 'real' agreement is - I assume CC is just evidence. [Even if EW were misinformed about the sequence then West's double could be considered IWOG (unless EW could show this sequence was a forcing one - which seems unlikely) but this isn't clear - what should the ruling be if 4C was decided to be natural?] - Is it relevant that perhaps North was woken up to the meaning of the 4C bid when his partner answered that he wasn't sure of the meaning of 4C ie this is similar to a situation where you misbid and although you realise before partner tells you, it is assumed you were woken up by partner? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Flory" To: "David Burn" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] > David > > Wouldn't you want to know both what the formal partnership agreement was, > and what his partner knew (from experience) that it might be? In this case > partner may not be sure what the opener has and telling you only what the > formal agreement is would be less than "full disclosure" in my mind. > > Walt Flory > > > At 06:07 AM 2/26/02 +0000, David Burn wrote: > > > > Or if not, then perhaps > > > "supposedly hearts, but he often forgets." > > >This belated attempt not to win the HdW Prize for M-H T has, after > >careful consideration, been rejected by the judges. > > > >If it really were the case that 4C showed hearts, I would want to know: > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 10:20:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1QNJwl12697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:19:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1QNJoH12678 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:19:50 +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 KAA20139 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:22:05 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:08:36 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Active Ethics vs Legality? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/02/2002 10:08:54 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 Director's Ruling [misapplication], Peter Newman wrote: [snip] >Some comments of my own: >- It appears that legally NS did nothing wrong (assuming you decide >their agreement is NAMYATS). They just fell on their feet. N did not >(as is his right) follow the Active Ethics principle of adding a >disclaimer when partner was absent to say 'I have shown this hand but >don't have it'. As an aside should we be encouraging people to follow >Active Ethics? [snip] I disagree with Peter Newman's broad definition of Active Ethics, preferring a narrower, Kaplanesque definition: Active Ethics = Bending over backwards to fulfill *legal* requirements. I agree with Kaplan that it is the antithesis of sportmanship to act against your own interests when not legally required to. However, I also believe that laws which are contrary to the Active Ethics ideal should be changed. For example, the 1997 change which made an OS player's withdrawn actions UI instead of AI to their partner. 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 Feb 27 11:13:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0DEL20683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:13:14 +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-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 g1R0CpH20644 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16frYj-000Bbg-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:03:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:59:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <006e01c1be1a$f7a509e0$7f033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <006e01c1be1a$f7a509e0$7f033dd4@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 >Law88 only deals with the highness of the artificial adjusted score IN CASE >there is one. >Law 12C1 says: "When owing to an iregularity......". >Is leaving the tournament because of a good reason an irregularity? Yes. The "regular" thing to do is to continue to play. The word irregularity does not of itself have any connotations of anyone being at fault. -- 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 Feb 27 11:13:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0DEX20686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:13:14 +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-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 g1R0CnH20636 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:12:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16frYk-000Bbk-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:03:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:30:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <5.1.0.14.0.20020225180421.009f89d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005701c1be22$bc0b30a0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> <004101c1be52$091ee560$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <004101c1be52$091ee560$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "David Burn" > >> Was Sven really saying that in Norway you get four 60% boards for being >> East-West in a movement with a half table? That seems even odder than >> some of the already odd stuff in this thread. > >It may be appropriate to point out that when we play Mitchell movements in >Norway we adhere to the fundamental rule for Mitchell that the North-South >players cannot be compared to the East-West players, and split the field >into >two groups, providing two ranking lists, one for all the North-South pairs >and >another one for all the East-West pairs. > >Leaving no problem with walk-over (or sit-outs) Yes, it does: as I have explained in a previous post, unfortunately already sent, so I cannot append this. If you expect to sit out four boards and so does everyone else you score it consistently. Even if some do not they know what is happening. But a sudden unexpected loss of boards might easily put a pair at a disadvantage, and the normal method of redressing this and keeping customers happy is that players that lose a board to a walk-over, ie an unexpected loss of board, get average plus if they were not at fault. -------------------- Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ I was trying not to put my head above >the parapet on this subject. However, it has >always been a source of surprise to me that >pairs do not receive their session average >on any boards they miss, subject to having >played a given quota of boards. This is close >to what DB is saying, I think? While this argument is reasonable, there seems as explained above a difference between boards you do not expect to play and those you do. ------- At the Merseyside Bridge Centre they messed the movement up some time ago. We played 12 boards, then found that we had to take four averages because there were no boards for us to play. We then sat out four boards, waiting for the last four - and there were no boards for us to play. Actually we got no score on the boards we did not play, and so we could not better our half-time score of 52%. I felt hard done by. No, no-one offered us a refund. -- 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 Feb 27 11:13:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0DEj20685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:13:14 +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-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 g1R0CmH20632 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16frYk-000Bbj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:03:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:29:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00b401c1be56$70758760$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <00b401c1be56$70758760$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "Walt Flory" > >> Interesting Sven. This is a new concept to me, but I cannot say that it is >> either right or wrong. Just different. Sure would like to get a 60% score >> for not playing some pairs, and would hate to settle for it for not >playing >> others. >> >> Walt Flory >> > >I choose to comment here: > >What really surprises me with this thread is how many people (and >organisations) apparently overlook the fact that when a pair receives >no score for a board which they have not played (whether scheduled >or not) that in itself is an artificial assigned score (of zero). > >Look up Chapter 1: Definitions, and you will see that (quote) an artificial >assigned score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can >be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity >prevents play of a deal) > >In my Webster's "e.g." is explained as an abbreviation for "exempli gratia" >with the meaning "for example". Thus an "irregularity" is obviously not a >prerequisite for an artificial assigned score, what is required is only that >no score can be obtained or estimated, whatever the reason. > >Does this not cover the case of scheduled "sit-outs" as well as other >cases of boards on which a score cannot be obtained? No. You are assuming that no score means something else, but it does not, and your definitions do not say it does. It is the same score as Grattan got last Thursday in the Outer Mongolia Pairs. He got no score because he was not there. He may also have got zero on the odd board in the Merseyside League, but that is different, because he was there. In fact we stuffed the Bear's team 12-0! -- 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 Feb 27 11:13:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0D9d20677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:13:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1R0ClH20629 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16frYj-000Bbh-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:03:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:11:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >But what I do not understand here is why you "break" the session after 7 >rounds >instead of playing out the full Mitchell correctly with all 8 rounds, then >there >would be no such problem. In most places the length of a session is decided by what the customers want, and is decided in advance. Clubs in England, for example, play 24 boards in some clubs, 26 or 27 in others. While there are clever movements to do anything, most clubs prefer simple movements. So a club that played 28 boards as the normal and had 8 tables would play an incomplete movement. -- 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 Feb 27 11:13:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0DAR20679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:13:10 +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-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 g1R0ClH20630 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16frYk-000Bbi-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:03:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:17:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "Herman De Wael" >......... >> > Better read the definition of artificial adjusted score in chapter 1 >> > (e.g. means "for example") >> > >> >> >> yes, "irregularity prevents play of a deal". >> What's the irregularity in an odd number of contestants? > >You did not read and understand it completely did you? > >"e.g." means "for example" (look it up in your dictionary) > >"e.g.,when an irregularity...." therefore does not limit the >application of this definition to irregularities, it simply >gives one example of when the definition applies. > >So this definition is applicable to all cases where a score >must be assigned (adjusted) because no result can be >obtained or estimated. It does not apply to a case where a score does not need to be given. To take a ridiculous example, if you play in Tromso, there is no need for a club in Oslo to give you average plus for any board you miss there. >And remember that not giving any score is equivalent to >awarding an adjusted score of zero, which then is against >Law 88 whenever the pair receiving such adjusted score >is not at fault. No, it is not. Not giving a score means not giving a score. The club in Oslo does not give you any scores, obviously. They do not put up a list at the end showing Sven Pran bottom, with no points because he was not there. >> Sorry Sven, but you cannot prove that the Norwegian way is >> the only correct one under the law as written. >> I'm not saying it's illegal (I do believe it's incorrect), >> but you cannot use the Law to declare all other countries >> illegal. >I wonder . . . . . > >(BTW is Norway really the only country doing it this way, >excluding of course the cases when it does not matter at all >because all pairs have the same number of un-played boards >in a single-session event and no intermediate results are needed?) England and Wales do not use this method. -- 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 Feb 27 11:55:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R0slf26678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:54:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R0saH26650 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1Q10to13315 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:00:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:43:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >David Burn writes > >>Now, I don't claim to understand very much about Neuberg, Aschermann, >>arrow switching, and all the other bizarre things that tournament >>directors do in order to make sure that players' scores do not reflect >>their actual performance. But I really do not see why it is that I >>should be given some wholly arbitrary number of match points for not >>doing anything, when the match points I scored on the boards where I did >>something are entirely adequate to provide a true measure of my >>performance relative to the rest of the field. > > Suppose you estimate that you are running at 58%, and need to go a bit >on the last round to win. You duly play the last four boards in an >exciting style, and get your score up to 61% - just enough to win. Well >done that man! > > But your chance to do this has been removed by the pair leaving early. >The score you get given on such boards reflects a compromise for the >chance you might have had to get a good score thereon. > > What is different if you are sitting out the last round? Then you >knew that you were playing the last round before that last round [I >know, I have just re-read this: ok, you know what I mean even if I have >written it ridiculously] and should not be trying to win it then. There >seems a difference to me between a board you were never intended to >play, and a board that has been taken away from you through someone >else's fault. > Let's just say we're playing barometer scoring. So we know our score on each round. Does this mean that there as many sessions as rounds? No, clearly not. Let's say we play 2 rounds with boards 1-8 in the whole field, then 2 more boards with 9-16 etc, and the scores get declared every 8 boards. Does this mean that each session is 8 boards. No, of course not. let's say we play 24 boards before the scores are declared. Does this mean that each session is 24 boards? Well only if you stop. Suppose you just play straight on through for 48 boards (which is what any *real* bridge player would do). So the session would not be 24 boards, but 48. In other words each board in the event has equal weight. Session breaks are for wimps who don't have the stamina to play 96 boards straight through, and are entirely artificial breaks in the context of the whole event. Given my style which generates high variance, can I please have all my tops in the set that I sit out , and I'll get about 90% for my sit-out. BAH! F****g ridiculous! So, If we're going to have a one winner movement (lets assume the jackass running it gets it reasonably well balanced) where some players have played 2, 3 or 4 boards more than others, then scores should be based on actual score over their maximum possible score across the whole event. This is what the EBU does. To award somebody 72% or 36% because it happens to be what they scored in some random subset of the event is just plain stupid. That's dealt with sit-outs. Now let's think about walk-overs. 60% represents the most likely best score for a pair finishing top 3. You just award this to every pair unfortunate enough not to have been able to play the boards they were scheduled to play. There is a substantive difference in why we award different scores here. -- 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 Feb 27 15:13:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R4D2h10985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:13:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06bw.bigpond.com (mta06bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R4CsH10965 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:12:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta06bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS6B9800.83L for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:03:08 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-74-126.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.74.126]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 20/2129093); 27 Feb 2002 14:03:08 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227145526.00bc4ae0@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:03:03 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Enjoy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some think the players have all the fun but I really enjoyed an incident today. East South West 2S pass 2C East was showing two suits of the same colour. 2C was not accepted so I didn't even look at West's card to see what 3C might have meant. I know a convention when I see one. I say to West - 'your partner is out of the auction...ho ho ho' Later I find they scored about 60% in 3H...curses Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 18:33:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R7WuP20791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:32:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g1R7WjH20762 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:32:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.82.98] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fyLS-000Bj0-00; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:17:46 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c1bf60$05597940$6252e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:12:20 -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: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > Suppose you estimate that you are running at 58%, and need > to go a bit on the last round to win. You duly play the last four > boards in an exciting style, and get your score up to 61% - > just enough to win. Well done that man! > > But your chance to do this has been removed by the pair > leaving early. > The score you get given on such boards reflects a compromise > for the chance you might have had to get a good score thereon. > > What is different if you are sitting out the last round? Then > you knew that you were playing the last round before that last > round [I know, I have just re-read this: ok, you know what I > mean even if I have written it ridiculously] and should not be > trying to win it then. There seems a difference to me between > a board you were never intended to play, and a board that > has been taken away from you through someone else's fault. > > -- > David Stevenson > +=+ I think there is a world of difference between deprival of opportunity on a board you were due to play and not having a score on a board when you were never due for a score on it. In the latter circumstances any thought of an 'adjusted score' on the board is misconceived. What we have, instead, is a procedure to provide compensation in the overall score for purposes of comparability, when contestants are not afforded equal opportunities to obtain identical maxima for a session of play. In my view the procedure to equalize scoring potential is a matter for sponsoring organizations severally using powers given in Law 78D. I believe neither Law 12 nor Law 88 has any relevance to boards contestants are not due to play and, further, under Law 78D I think it bizarre (but legal) to adopt methods in this that subvert the consequences of actual performance. ~ 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 Feb 27 18:57:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R7uk023102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:56:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R7ucH23098 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:56:39 +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 g1R7lX513342 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:47:33 -0900 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:46:14 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227145526.00bc4ae0@bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tony Musgrove wrote: > East South West > 2S pass 2C > > East was showing two suits of the same colour. 2C was > not accepted so I didn't even look at West's card to > see what 3C might have meant. I know a convention > when I see one. Now, I've never played a 2S opening like that... but I have played CRASH overcalls a few times... and to this observer the most obvious meaning by far for 3C looks to be pass-or-correct - which is solidly 'incontrovertibly not conventional' in my book. Am I the only one disturbed by what looks like a glaringly incorrect ruling? 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 Feb 27 19:37:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R8arN23140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:36:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R8aiH23136 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:36:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3560.bb.online.no [80.212.221.232]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14900; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:26:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:26:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > It does not apply to a case where a score does not need to be given. > To take a ridiculous example, if you play in Tromso, there is no need > for a club in Oslo to give you average plus for any board you miss > there. Of course, in that case I am not a participant in Oslo. Isn't this a derailment David? Any tournament can be described (information wise) with a matrix (or spreadsheet): Along one axis you have all the participants and along the other you have all the boards played. (If the tournament consists of several groups that cannot be compared the list of participants obviously must be confined to one such group at a time). Each "cross-point" is a cell where you will find the result obtained by that participant on that particular board and the ranking from the tournament is obtained by summing up all cells for each participant. This should really be elementary. An empty cell means that we have a board not (yet) been played by a participant (for whatever reason). But even an empty cell contains a value - the value zero - the value for which so many arguments have been presented here. We have three more alternatives for possible values in each such cell: 2: the average for the whole tournament, 3: 60% of the maximum obtainable on a single board, or that participant's average in the affected session if higher than 60% (Law88), 4: the average obtained by that participant on all the other boards they have played (equivalent to ranking according to percentage scores) I think these four alternatives cover all the opinions that have been expressed here so far, and which of them is selected has absolutely no importance as long as the tournament is a single-session, completed event with no need for intermediate results where all participants have the same number of unplayed boards. Furthermore, I have the impression that in all those cases where they "do not assign a score" they really apply alternative 4 above when ranking the participants (ranking according to percentage score obtained by the participants over those boards they have played)? So where does this leave us? The question is reduced to this: When a participant for some reason (without being at fault) have not played one or more boards, does law 88 apply unconditionally, does it apply provided the cause is some unscheduled irregularity or does it not apply at all? And if law88 applies conditionally, exactly where do we draw the line between where it applies and where not? Obviously when ranking the participants if/when law88 does not apply the ranking must be based upon the percentage score obtained by the participants, but that is a consequence of the answer to my questions above, not the main question itself. 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 Feb 27 19:46:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R8jwQ23159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:45:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R8joH23155 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:45:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3676.bb.online.no [80.212.222.92]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA18497; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:36:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002701c1bf69$ca3c3820$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:35:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" ........ > Let's just say we're playing barometer scoring. So we know our score on > each round. Does this mean that there as many sessions as rounds? No, > clearly not. The Laws do not define session very well, it only states that a session must contain more than one round. Those regulations I have seen define a session as an extended periode of play, separated from another periode by a pause significantly longer than the pause between rounds. Leaving, I believe, the rest of your post as irrelevant? 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 Feb 27 20:14:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9Dxt23184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:14:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9DpH23180 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:13:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1R943D04767; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:03 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1R942c30966; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:02 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:02 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <002701c1bf69$ca3c3820$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > ........ > > Let's just say we're playing barometer scoring. So we know our score on > > each round. Does this mean that there as many sessions as rounds? No, > > clearly not. > > The Laws do not define session very well, it only states that a session > must contain more than one round. >From the definitions: Session: An extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring organisation, is scheduled to be played. Round: A part of a session played without progression of players. This does not exclude 1 round sessions (and there can be good reasons for 1 round sessions, for example in Swiss, where you want the time period in 79C to end for one match, before the play starts for the next one). 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 20:14:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9Ee523196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:14:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9EVH23192 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:14:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3973.bb.online.no [80.212.223.133]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA19786; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003501c1bf6d$c82fc980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> <000c01c1bf60$05597940$6252e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" ........ +=+ I think there is a world of difference between deprival > of opportunity on a board you were due to play and not having a > score on a board when you were never due for a score on it. > In the latter circumstances any thought of an 'adjusted > score' on the board is misconceived. What we have, instead, > is a procedure to provide compensation in the overall score > for purposes of comparability, when contestants are not > afforded equal opportunities to obtain identical maxima for a > session of play. In my view the procedure to equalize > scoring potential is a matter for sponsoring organizations > severally using powers given in Law 78D. > I believe neither Law 12 nor Law 88 has any relevance to > boards contestants are not due to play and, further, under > Law 78D I think it bizarre (but legal) to adopt methods in > this that subvert the consequences of actual performance. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, I appreciate your views here, but they leave me with one important question: In a Monrad event (where the seating in a following round depends upon your intermediate ranking - round after round), and where there is an odd number of pairs so that one pair will have a "sit-out" or "walk over" in each round: Do you have an opinion on what compensation should be given to the "sit-out" pair in each round? Giving them the "average" from their first, very unlycky round(s) doesn't seem right to me, and you have no idea of their total average yet so you cannot give them that. What remains is to give them an artificially adjusted score of either plain average or something else, but the moment you do that, will not then Law 88 automatically apply? (when ..... is required to take an artificially adjusted score ....) And before claiming that we have an irregularity because you do not know in advance who will have to take a "sit-out", please remember that the first two rounds (normally) are scheduled in advance so there is no surprise for the "sit-out" pairs in those two rounds. But treating the "sit-outs" in those two rounds differently from the remaining "sit-outs" cannot possibly be correct. Anyway, by SO regulation if nothing else, in Norway we apply law 88 in all such cases (when it is important for whatever reason). 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 Feb 27 20:39:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9d2R23216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:39:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9crH23212 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:38:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48176.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.48]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1R9T5g29333 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:29:05 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CA700.5090003@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:29:36 +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] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > > Any tournament can be described (information wise) with a matrix > (or spreadsheet): Along one axis you have all the participants and along > the other you have all the boards played. (If the tournament consists of > several groups that cannot be compared the list of participants obviously > must be confined to one such group at a time). > > Each "cross-point" is a cell where you will find the result obtained by > that participant on that particular board and the ranking from the > tournament > is obtained by summing up all cells for each participant. > > This should really be elementary. > yes it is, but what does that prove ? In my opinion, in each cell there are two values: - a percentage giving the "score" - a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the board was played or not. Isn't the sum of this last value an interesting piece of information : the number of boards played ? In your case, all pairs have "played" all boards, even if there are 39 of them. Can't you see that you are trying to prove something which is totally unprovable ? And totally useless at that ? Your country does something that no-one else does, and yet you are trying to convince the whole world that WE are going against the Laws ? Why ? no-one has yet said that the Norwegian way is against the laws, then why should you try to prove that it's the unique one proscribed ? > An empty cell means that we have a board not (yet) been played by a > participant (for whatever reason). But even an empty cell contains a > value - the value zero - the value for which so many arguments have > been presented here. > > We have three more alternatives for possible values in each such cell: > 2: the average for the whole tournament, > 3: 60% of the maximum obtainable on a single board, or that participant's > average in the affected session if higher than 60% (Law88), > 4: the average obtained by that participant on all the other boards they > have played (equivalent to ranking according to percentage scores) > > I think these four alternatives cover all the opinions that have been > expressed > here so far, and which of them is selected has absolutely no importance as > long as the tournament is a single-session, completed event with no need for > intermediate results where all participants have the same number of unplayed > boards. Furthermore, I have the impression that in all those cases where > they > "do not assign a score" they really apply alternative 4 above when ranking > the > participants (ranking according to percentage score obtained by the > participants > over those boards they have played)? > > So where does this leave us? The question is reduced to this: When a > participant > for some reason (without being at fault) have not played one or more boards, > does law 88 apply unconditionally, does it apply provided the cause is some > unscheduled irregularity or does it not apply at all? > > And if law88 applies conditionally, exactly where do we draw the line > between > where it applies and where not? > > Obviously when ranking the participants if/when law88 does not apply the > ranking must be based upon the percentage score obtained by the > participants, > but that is a consequence of the answer to my questions above, not the main > question itself. > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 27 20:47:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9lVr23232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:47:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9lMH23228 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:47:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0378.bb.online.no [80.212.209.122]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA05335; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:37:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007f01c1bf72$62a14e40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" Cc: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:37:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ..... > This does not exclude 1 round sessions (and there can be good reasons for > 1 round sessions, for example in Swiss, where you want the time period in > 79C to end for one match, before the play starts for the next one). > > Henk Correct, In the hurry I mixed up with the (in this case) incorrect Norwegian translation of the laws which says multiple rounds instead of multiple boards. Sorry 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 Feb 27 20:51:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9pAM23245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:51:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9p2H23241 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:51:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48176.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.48]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1R9fIg13256 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:41:18 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:41:50 +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] Enjoy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk GordY, I think TonY did give a correct ruling. 3C would be conventional, so no possibility of changing 2C to anything that still allows partner to speak. West shall pick reds or blacks and play there ! Gordon Bower wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> East South West >> 2S pass 2C >> >>East was showing two suits of the same colour. 2C was >>not accepted so I didn't even look at West's card to >>see what 3C might have meant. I know a convention >>when I see one. >> > > Now, I've never played a 2S opening like that... but I have played CRASH > overcalls a few times... and to this observer the most obvious meaning by > far for 3C looks to be pass-or-correct - which is solidly > 'incontrovertibly not conventional' in my book. Am I the only one > disturbed by what looks like a glaringly incorrect ruling? > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 27 20:57:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1R9usl23260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:56:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1R9ujH23256 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:56:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0492.bb.online.no [80.212.209.236]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16877; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:46:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008b01c1bf73$b25bf600$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7CA700.5090003@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:46:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" I would have been much more interested in your comments to the essential part of my posting: > > So where does this leave us? The question is reduced to this: When a > > participant > > for some reason (without being at fault) have not played one or more boards, > > does law 88 apply unconditionally, does it apply provided the cause is some > > unscheduled irregularity or does it not apply at all? > > > > And if law88 applies conditionally, exactly where do we draw the line > > between > > where it applies and where not? > > > > Obviously when ranking the participants if/when law88 does not apply the > > ranking must be based upon the percentage score obtained by the > > participants, > > but that is a consequence of the answer to my questions above, not the main > > question itself. I think Grattan has made a great clarification to the case, possibly just leaving one situation which might need even further clarification 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 Feb 27 21:01:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RA1bi23279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:01:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RA1SH23275 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:01:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48176.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.48]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1R9peg24863 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:51:40 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CAC4B.9030202@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:52:11 +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] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> <000c01c1bf60$05597940$6252e150@dodona> <003501c1bf6d$c82fc980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, when dealing with swiss-type events, there is a need for a particular regulation covering sit-outs. That regulation is IMHO best the following : Award the sit-outs 50% (so that they do not suffer from too strong an opponent in some later round) and give them an additional 10% at the end of the tournament. These rules can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to pairs and teams tournaments alike.. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Grattan Endicott" > ........ > +=+ I think there is a world of difference between deprival > >>of opportunity on a board you were due to play and not having a >>score on a board when you were never due for a score on it. >> In the latter circumstances any thought of an 'adjusted >>score' on the board is misconceived. What we have, instead, >>is a procedure to provide compensation in the overall score >>for purposes of comparability, when contestants are not >>afforded equal opportunities to obtain identical maxima for a >>session of play. In my view the procedure to equalize >>scoring potential is a matter for sponsoring organizations >>severally using powers given in Law 78D. >> I believe neither Law 12 nor Law 88 has any relevance to >>boards contestants are not due to play and, further, under >>Law 78D I think it bizarre (but legal) to adopt methods in >>this that subvert the consequences of actual performance. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Grattan, I appreciate your views here, but they leave me with one > important question: In a Monrad event (where the seating in a > following round depends upon your intermediate ranking - round > after round), and where there is an odd number of pairs so that > one pair will have a "sit-out" or "walk over" in each round: > Do you have an opinion on what compensation should be given > to the "sit-out" pair in each round? > > Giving them the "average" from their first, very unlycky round(s) > doesn't seem right to me, and you have no idea of their total > average yet so you cannot give them that. What remains is > to give them an artificially adjusted score of either plain average > or something else, but the moment you do that, will not then > Law 88 automatically apply? > (when ..... is required to take an artificially adjusted score ....) > > And before claiming that we have an irregularity because you do > not know in advance who will have to take a "sit-out", please > remember that the first two rounds (normally) are scheduled in > advance so there is no surprise for the "sit-out" pairs in those > two rounds. But treating the "sit-outs" in those two rounds > differently from the remaining "sit-outs" cannot possibly be correct. > > Anyway, by SO regulation if nothing else, in Norway we apply > law 88 in all such cases (when it is important for whatever reason). > > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 27 22:39:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RBdJO02520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:39:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f62.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RBdAH02491 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:39:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:29:23 -0800 Received: from 172.148.183.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:29:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.148.183.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:29:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 11:29:23.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[017FC910:01C1BF82] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where all contestants will meet. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a round robin and avoid the sitout. -Todd >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:52:11 +0100 > >Sven, > >when dealing with swiss-type events, there is a need for a >particular regulation covering sit-outs. > >That regulation is IMHO best the following : > >Award the sit-outs 50% (so that they do not suffer from too >strong an opponent in some later round) >and give them an additional 10% at the end of the tournament. > >These rules can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to pairs and >teams tournaments alike.. > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>........ >> +=+ I think there is a world of difference between deprival >> >>>of opportunity on a board you were due to play and not having a >>>score on a board when you were never due for a score on it. >>> In the latter circumstances any thought of an 'adjusted >>>score' on the board is misconceived. What we have, instead, >>>is a procedure to provide compensation in the overall score >>>for purposes of comparability, when contestants are not >>>afforded equal opportunities to obtain identical maxima for a >>>session of play. In my view the procedure to equalize >>>scoring potential is a matter for sponsoring organizations >>>severally using powers given in Law 78D. >>> I believe neither Law 12 nor Law 88 has any relevance to >>>boards contestants are not due to play and, further, under >>>Law 78D I think it bizarre (but legal) to adopt methods in >>>this that subvert the consequences of actual performance. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >>Grattan, I appreciate your views here, but they leave me with one >>important question: In a Monrad event (where the seating in a >>following round depends upon your intermediate ranking - round >>after round), and where there is an odd number of pairs so that >>one pair will have a "sit-out" or "walk over" in each round: >>Do you have an opinion on what compensation should be given >>to the "sit-out" pair in each round? >> >>Giving them the "average" from their first, very unlycky round(s) >>doesn't seem right to me, and you have no idea of their total >>average yet so you cannot give them that. What remains is >>to give them an artificially adjusted score of either plain average >>or something else, but the moment you do that, will not then >>Law 88 automatically apply? >>(when ..... is required to take an artificially adjusted score ....) >> >>And before claiming that we have an irregularity because you do >>not know in advance who will have to take a "sit-out", please >>remember that the first two rounds (normally) are scheduled in >>advance so there is no surprise for the "sit-out" pairs in those >>two rounds. But treating the "sit-outs" in those two rounds >>differently from the remaining "sit-outs" cannot possibly be correct. >> >>Anyway, by SO regulation if nothing else, in Norway we apply >>law 88 in all such cases (when it is important for whatever reason). >> >>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/ >> >> > > >-- >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/ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 22:39:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RBcxe02454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:38:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f18.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RBcpH02431 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:38:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:29:03 -0800 Received: from 172.148.183.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:29:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.148.183.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:29:03 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 11:29:03.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5B96960:01C1BF81] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where all contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a round robin and avoid the sitout. -Todd >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:52:11 +0100 > >Sven, > >when dealing with swiss-type events, there is a need for a >particular regulation covering sit-outs. > >That regulation is IMHO best the following : > >Award the sit-outs 50% (so that they do not suffer from too >strong an opponent in some later round) >and give them an additional 10% at the end of the tournament. > >These rules can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to pairs and >teams tournaments alike.. > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>........ >> +=+ I think there is a world of difference between deprival >> >>>of opportunity on a board you were due to play and not having a >>>score on a board when you were never due for a score on it. >>> In the latter circumstances any thought of an 'adjusted >>>score' on the board is misconceived. What we have, instead, >>>is a procedure to provide compensation in the overall score >>>for purposes of comparability, when contestants are not >>>afforded equal opportunities to obtain identical maxima for a >>>session of play. In my view the procedure to equalize >>>scoring potential is a matter for sponsoring organizations >>>severally using powers given in Law 78D. >>> I believe neither Law 12 nor Law 88 has any relevance to >>>boards contestants are not due to play and, further, under >>>Law 78D I think it bizarre (but legal) to adopt methods in >>>this that subvert the consequences of actual performance. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >>Grattan, I appreciate your views here, but they leave me with one >>important question: In a Monrad event (where the seating in a >>following round depends upon your intermediate ranking - round >>after round), and where there is an odd number of pairs so that >>one pair will have a "sit-out" or "walk over" in each round: >>Do you have an opinion on what compensation should be given >>to the "sit-out" pair in each round? >> >>Giving them the "average" from their first, very unlycky round(s) >>doesn't seem right to me, and you have no idea of their total >>average yet so you cannot give them that. What remains is >>to give them an artificially adjusted score of either plain average >>or something else, but the moment you do that, will not then >>Law 88 automatically apply? >>(when ..... is required to take an artificially adjusted score ....) >> >>And before claiming that we have an irregularity because you do >>not know in advance who will have to take a "sit-out", please >>remember that the first two rounds (normally) are scheduled in >>advance so there is no surprise for the "sit-out" pairs in those >>two rounds. But treating the "sit-outs" in those two rounds >>differently from the remaining "sit-outs" cannot possibly be correct. >> >>Anyway, by SO regulation if nothing else, in Norway we apply >>law 88 in all such cases (when it is important for whatever reason). >> >>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/ >> >> > > >-- >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/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 22:39:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RBdZ702563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:39:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RBdOH02539 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:39:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g2HD-000Lhs-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:29:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:14:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] References: <200202260238.VAA22962@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020226135436.02722c50@mail.fscv.net> <0e7601c1bf0c$9e57c6f0$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> In-Reply-To: <0e7601c1bf0c$9e57c6f0$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes >Some comments of my own: >- It appears that legally NS did nothing wrong (assuming you decide their >agreement is NAMYATS). They just fell on their feet. N did not (as is his >right) follow the Active Ethics principle of adding a disclaimer when >partner was absent to say 'I have shown this hand but don't have it'. As an >aside should we be encouraging people to follow Active Ethics? Most of what is described as Active Ethics is no more than requirements of the laws that are not well-known, and promulgating them as Active Ethics is good. An example of Active Ethics is that people should correct their partner's explanations at the end of a hand when defending. It is, of course, mandatory, but telling people it is Active Ethics may help to make it happen. If a player is *quite sure* that an agreement has been described correctly then I see no reason why he should say anything. As Garozzo proved [or was it his opponent] odd comments can cause damage. I would not call it Active Ethics to tell someone his hand does not match. This is rather different if he is not sure: then I think he should tend to act as though the explanation 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 Wed Feb 27 22:53:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RBqsh05111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RBqkH05089 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:42:59 -0800 Received: from 172.148.183.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:42:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.148.183.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Active Ethics vs Legality? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:42:59 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 11:42:59.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7E99330:01C1BF83] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >However, I also believe that laws which are contrary to the Active >Ethics ideal should be changed. For example, the 1997 change which >made an OS player's withdrawn actions UI instead of AI to their >partner. Can you give me an example that demonstrates why you think that was an undesireable change? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 23:35:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RCZ8Y13605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:35:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net ([209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RCYxH13577 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:34:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-121-104-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.104]) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1RCPDf22600 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:25:13 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:24:31 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: Poor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@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 >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> >>> East South West >>> 2S pass 2C >>> >>> East was showing two suits of the same colour. 2C was >>> not accepted so I didn't even look at West's card to >>> see what 3C might have meant. I know a convention >>> when I see one. >> > Gordon Bower wrote: > >> Now, I've never played a 2S opening like that... but I have played CRASH >> overcalls a few times... and to this observer the most obvious meaning by >> far for 3C looks to be pass-or-correct - which is solidly >> 'incontrovertibly not conventional' in my book. Am I the only one >> disturbed by what looks like a glaringly incorrect ruling? >> Herman De Wael wrote: > GordY, I think TonY did give a correct ruling. 3C would be conventional, > so no possibility of changing 2C to anything that still allows partner > to speak. > West shall pick reds or blacks and play there ! > Convention 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." The fact that partner may now bid 3D to show the red suits is a red herring. 3C says nothing about the red suits. 3D, if pass-or-correct, is in a slightly greyer area, since it implies a spade preference. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 27 23:47:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RCkot16206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:46:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RCkfH16171 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:46:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2460.bb.online.no [80.212.217.156]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA29821; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:36:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:36:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where all > contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a > round robin and avoid the sitout. > > -Todd ????? I am talking about events for pairs where there is an odd number of pairs participating. Where the pairs are seated in round three is decided from their rank after the first round, where they are seated in round four is decided from their rank after the second round and so on. Obviously 1: we shall have a "sit-out" pair in each round, and 2: This "sit-out" pair must have some artificial adjusted score awarded (or their ranking will be meaningless). I cannot understand law 88 in any other way than that this required score shall be awarded under that law, that is 60% 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 Feb 27 23:56:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RCuY118182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:56:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RCuJH18125 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:56:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75091.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.83]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1RCkTg16643 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:46:29 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CD544.3080909@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:47:00 +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] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7CA700.5090003@village.uunet.be> <008b01c1bf73$b25bf600$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, I'm sorry if I did not answer all of your post. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > I would have been much more interested in your comments to the > essential part of my posting: > > >>>So where does this leave us? The question is reduced to this: When a >>>participant >>>for some reason (without being at fault) have not played one or more >>> > boards, > >>>does law 88 apply unconditionally, does it apply provided the cause is >>> > some > >>>unscheduled irregularity or does it not apply at all? >>> But you're throwing together two different things. L88 speaks of "required to take an ArtAS". What I am saying is that if a pair has no opponents, they should not get any score - not even an ArtAS. So L88 does not enter into the discussion at all. Of course if the regulations stipulate that an ArtAS is awarded, as they do in Norway, then L88 applies as well. >>>And if law88 applies conditionally, exactly where do we draw the line >>>between >>>where it applies and where not? >>> Not in question in this context. The question is whether or not to apply L12C1, not what to do after one has applied it. That part is not under discussion. >>>Obviously when ranking the participants if/when law88 does not apply the >>>ranking must be based upon the percentage score obtained by the >>>participants, >>>but that is a consequence of the answer to my questions above, not the >>> > main > >>>question itself. >>> > > I think Grattan has made a great clarification to the case, possibly just > leaving > one situation which might need even further clarification > > Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 28 00:01:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RD19h19112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:01:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RD10H19093 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:01:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75091.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.83]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1RCpFg23491 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:51:15 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:51:46 +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] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ooops, I now see what our Alaskan friends mean. Sorry. However: Michael Schmahl wrote: > > Convention > 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other > than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make > a call a convention. > > 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." The fact that > partner may now bid 3D to show the red suits is a red herring. 3C says > nothing about the red suits. 3D, if pass-or-correct, is in a slightly > greyer area, since it implies a spade preference. > Well, doesn't 3Cl also show spade non-preference ? "I know a convention when I see one" The fact that a particular call can be passed out by partner does not in itself mean that it is non-conventional. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 00:18:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RDINE22306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:18:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RDIDH22281 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:18:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-16-167.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.16.167] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16g3or-0004Tv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:08:29 +0000 Message-ID: <3C7CDA4C.8996A7E4@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:08:29 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C *if you have clubs*." -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford London UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 00:20:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RDK7Y22546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:20:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RDJvH22517 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:19:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1RDADB13904 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > If a player is *quite sure* that an agreement has been described > correctly then I see no reason why he should say anything. As Garozzo > proved [or was it his opponent] odd comments can cause damage. I would > not call it Active Ethics to tell someone his hand does not match. Where I think "active ethics" comes in is how an explanation of one's own calls is given/corrected. Personally I would always say "It shows..." regardless of what is in my hand*. I think the law would let me get away with "It's ...". I am aware that this is a fairly fine distinction but I do think it is important not to mislead opps by the "tone" of the explanation. * obviously any relationship between what is in my hand and any previous bidding is regarded by many as coincidental. 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 Feb 28 00:20:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RDKMv22581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:20:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RDK9H22551 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:20:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3001.bb.online.no [80.212.219.185]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11405; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:10:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1bf90$1bdc41e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:09:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > > > Convention > > 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other > > than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > > more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make > > a call a convention. > > > > 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." The fact that > > partner may now bid 3D to show the red suits is a red herring. 3C says > > nothing about the red suits. 3D, if pass-or-correct, is in a slightly > > greyer area, since it implies a spade preference. > > > > > Well, doesn't 3Cl also show spade non-preference ? > "I know a convention when I see one" > The fact that a particular call can be passed out by partner > does not in itself mean that it is non-conventional. I have a feeling you are pulling the "convention" term too far: If the auction goes (natural): Partner Me 1S - 1NT 2H - 2S My 2S bid shows preference for spades. You could similarly argue that it also shows non-preference for Hearts, but I would never accept that that makes my 2H bid a conventional call. (Nor do I believe you would argue) If the auction goes: LHO Partner RHO Me 1S 2NT* pass 3C (2NT showing 5-5 in minors) My 3C call is in no way conventional, it simply shows preference for clubs and willingness to play in that suit. On the contrary: Partner: 2D (multi) Me: 2H is obviously conventional, being a response showing absolutely no values except an accept to play in Hearts if that was partner's intention. (I could be void in hearts) 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 Feb 28 01:02:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RE0v900461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RE0mH00442 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS72GY00.1HC for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:50:58 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/488562); 27 Feb 2002 23:50:54 Message-ID: <01cc01c1bf95$d285c920$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:38:53 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> (2) Same event, 1997. The Mixed Pairs Final is advertised to start >> at 10am. At the last minute, this is changed to 9-30am. One pair - Dick >> Cummings and Pamela Blinman - are not advised of this change, due >> to a mistake by the organisers. They arrive at 9-45am, to find that the >> reserve pair has played two hands in their place, scoring two bottoms >> against the eventual winners (the Barometer scoring made this >> apparent). The Regulations do not cover this situation. >> >> Cummings - Blinman are narrowly pipped by the pair who received two >> tops. More than 30 minutes (the Correction Period applicable) later, >> Cummings - Blinman discover that their late arrival is not their fault, >> and ask if anything can be done. Can it? They had not commented >> earlier as they had wrongly assumed that it was their error about the >> starting time. > >I advise an IOC-type ruling : two gold medals. which is exactly what the ABF did do. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 01:02:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RE0ox00445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RE0eH00421 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS72GT00.B0N for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:50:53 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/488562); 27 Feb 2002 23:50:48 Message-ID: <01cb01c1bf95$cde8c160$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Not as Enjoyable as it first looked Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:35:14 +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 Gordon Bower wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> East South West >> 2S pass 2C >> >> East was showing two suits of the same colour. 2C was >> not accepted so I didn't even look at West's card to >> see what 3C might have meant. I know a convention >> when I see one. > >Now, I've never played a 2S opening like that... but I have played >CRASH overcalls a few times... and to this observer the most obvious >meaning by far for 3C looks to be pass-or-correct - which is solidly >'incontrovertibly not conventional' in my book. Am I the only one >disturbed by what looks like a glaringly incorrect ruling? This is trickier than it seems. That darn definition of "convention" in Chapter 1 of the Laws seems to want to make this conventional-looking 3C call non-conventional, unless .... If the 3C bidder has a 0=6=6=1 shape, he is virtually forced to bid 3C, although he has no "willingness" to play in 3C. In fact, he is hoping to be doubled and be able to redouble for rescue. Thus, if my logic is accepted, and I see no reason why it should not be, then 3C is by definition conventional, and Tony's ruling is right. Gordon, just in case nobody else is reading this thread, could you let me know whether you think I am being reasonable? Peter Gill Sydney Australia -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 01:02:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RE0il00429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com (mta06ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RE0YH00405 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:00:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS72GN00.205 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:50:47 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/488562); 27 Feb 2002 23:50:43 Message-ID: <01ca01c1bf95$ca99e480$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:23:51 +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: Sven Pran writes: >>the Norwegian way > England and Wales do not use this method. In Australia, virtually every bridge club uses either ASE (created by Ian McKinnon whose huge directing book is recommended) or Masterscore (created by Martin Willcox). I use ASE. We simply press the "No Score" key and let the program do whatever it does. There are other keys for Average, Any %, Passed In etc. I presume this means that we do not use the Norwegian method. Peter Gill Australia -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 01:02:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RE2da00737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:02:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RE2SH00710 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:02:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16g4Vg-0004k1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:52:45 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227083904.00aa6af0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:53:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misapplication] In-Reply-To: References: <0e7601c1bf0c$9e57c6f0$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> <200202260238.VAA22962@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020226135436.02722c50@mail.fscv.net> <0e7601c1bf0c$9e57c6f0$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:14 PM 2/26/02, David wrote: > Most of what is described as Active Ethics is no more than >requirements of the laws that are not well-known, and promulgating them >as Active Ethics is good. An example of Active Ethics is that people >should correct their partner's explanations at the end of a hand when >defending. It is, of course, mandatory, but telling people it is Active >Ethics may help to make it happen. More so than just telling them that it's required by law? In the ACBL, where Active Ethics originated, nobody seems to know what it means. Opinions vary from those who think it's part of the laws to those who think it's some crazy idea invented by a few high-level experts that has nothing to do with them. The majority in the middle take it to be what it has been consistently represented by the ACBL as: A set of (not well defined) ethical strictures that go beyond the requirements of the laws: to do what the Law requires is ethical; to do more than the Law requires to help your opponents in tricky situations is "actively ethical" and is encouraged. There are sharp differences of opinion (we have seem them in this forum) as to the validity of the concept; many players believe that it is wrong (usually on the grounds that it's unfair to the other contestants) to do more than the Law requires to help their opponents. So if you tell most ACBLers that correcting partner's explanation at the end of the auction is "active ethics", they will take this to mean that it is legally optional, albeit encouraged. That would only confuse the issue. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 01:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1REBcm02081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:11:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1REBTH02048 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:11:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16g4eR-0006HX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:01:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:02:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:36 AM 2/27/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where > all > > contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can > run a > > round robin and avoid the sitout. > >????? > >I am talking about events for pairs where there is an odd number >of pairs participating. Where the pairs are seated in round three is >decided from their rank after the first round, where they are seated >in round four is decided from their rank after the second round and >so on. > >Obviously >1: we shall have a "sit-out" pair in each round, and >2: This "sit-out" pair must have some artificial adjusted score awarded >(or their ranking will be meaningless). In the ACBL, when there is an odd number of pairs in a Swiss event, three teams are selected (ostensibly) at random to play a three-team round robin over the first two rounds. That produces results after round 2 that are comparable to those of the teams that have played two head-to-head matches, and the three teams are reintegrated with the field for round 3 matching. Starting with rounds 3-4, the three teams for the three-way round-robin match on each set of two rounds are chosen from the bottom of the field, with the proviso that no team plays in the three-way more than once. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 01:24:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1REOf804364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:24:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1REOYH04350 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:24:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS73KN00.EAB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:14:47 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/503366); 28 Feb 2002 00:14:43 Message-ID: <01e501c1bf99$2517c1e0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:14:56 +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 Gordon Rainsford wrote: Michael Schmahl wrote: >> 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." > >3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C *if you have clubs*." 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I prefer to play 3C than 2S *if you have clubs*, but later, if given the chance, I may prefer to play in 3D or 3H rather than 3C. As 3D and 3H are correctable responses, the only way to play in precisely 3D or 3H is to call 3C then to remove if doubled. Thus, with x, Qxxx, KJ10xxxx, x, one should call 3C, then if doubled, escape to 3D. This makes it clear that 3C is indeed conventional. 3C is conventional. 3D is conventional. How about 2S - 3H? Well, with Q10xx, Jx, x, KJxxxx, one is not at all *willing* to play in 3H, but one may be forced to bid 3H because deliberate insufficient bids are (arguably, for - oddly enough - there seems to be no Law saying or even hinting thus) against the rules. Thus the 3H call may run into problems with the "willingness" part of the definition of "convention", but those BLMLers who think that I like to look at words too literally would disagree and presumably have to rule that 3H is a convention. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 01:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RElGv08071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:16 +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-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 g1REl1H08041 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g5Cm-000IDZ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:37:18 +0000 Message-ID: <0u8XJKGPsMf8Ew1G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:03:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@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 >GordY, I think TonY did give a correct ruling. 3C would be >conventional, so no possibility of changing 2C to anything >that still allows partner to speak. Oh no, I can see an "Is it a convention or not?" argument on its way! ------------------------------ |----------------------------| || Flame-proof shelter || || || || || || DWS || || || |----------------------------| ------------------------------ -- 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 Feb 28 01:47:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RElIt08074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1REl2H08043 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g5Cm-000IDY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:37:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:58:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <001701c1be19$a55d4ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A7565.6010804@village.uunet.be> <004701c1be52$47283e60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7B5058.4030200@village.uunet.be> <004901c1bea9$fb352880$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <001301c1bf68$73fdc740$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "David Stevenson" > >> It does not apply to a case where a score does not need to be given. >> To take a ridiculous example, if you play in Tromso, there is no need >> for a club in Oslo to give you average plus for any board you miss >> there. > >Of course, in that case I am not a participant in Oslo. >Isn't this a derailment David? No, why? If you are not scheduled to play board 28 in Tromso you are not a participant on that board either. >Any tournament can be described (information wise) with a matrix >(or spreadsheet): Along one axis you have all the participants and along >the other you have all the boards played. (If the tournament consists of >several groups that cannot be compared the list of participants obviously >must be confined to one such group at a time). This is just incorrect. Why *must* the list be confined to one group? You are making up rules as you go along to suit an argument with no substance. It is a silly way of looking at it to describe information-wise a tournament as a number of cells that are not in the tournament at all. If a player is not intended to play either brd 3 [sit-out] brd 27 [in the next section only] or brd 56 [no such board] they are all the same and there is no reason to give them a score. >Each "cross-point" is a cell where you will find the result obtained by >that participant on that particular board and the ranking from the >tournament >is obtained by summing up all cells for each participant. > >This should really be elementary. It is elementary that it is a wrong way of looking at a tourney. >I think these four alternatives cover all the opinions that have been >expressed >here so far, and which of them is selected has absolutely no importance as >long as the tournament is a single-session, completed event with no need for >intermediate results where all participants have the same number of unplayed >boards. Furthermore, I have the impression that in all those cases where >they >"do not assign a score" they really apply alternative 4 above when ranking >the >participants (ranking according to percentage score obtained by the >participants >over those boards they have played)? When you do not apply a score to a board then you do not apply a score. Of course a player's score is nearly always his overall score divided by his possible score subject to some adjustments, eg VPs [other methods are legal, of course: eg scores in second round count double, and so on]. There is no need to compare the method to some alternative method whereby a score *is* given on a board. >So where does this leave us? The question is reduced to this: When a >participant >for some reason (without being at fault) have not played one or more boards, >does law 88 apply unconditionally, does it apply provided the cause is some >unscheduled irregularity or does it not apply at all? L88 refers to how to calculate an ArtAS in a pairs tourney. The Law does not mention when it should be applied, which is defined by L12C1. >And if law88 applies conditionally, exactly where do we draw the line >between >where it applies and where not? L88 applies when L12C1 says it applies. >Obviously when ranking the participants if/when law88 does not apply the >ranking must be based upon the percentage score obtained by the >participants, >but that is a consequence of the answer to my questions above, not the main >question itself. That is not correct either. The SO can make special methods of scoring. For example, it would be legal to apply a particular score to a pair for a board they are not scheduled to play, and that score could be anything the SO decides. An example of this is for a sit-out where a pair's score decides its next opponents. -- 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 Feb 28 01:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RElOV08081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g1REl6H08056 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:47:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g5Cm-000IDX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:37:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:39:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> <002701c1bf69$ca3c3820$6700a8c0@alcatelno> In-Reply-To: <002701c1bf69$ca3c3820$6700a8c0@alcatelno> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >........ >> Let's just say we're playing barometer scoring. So we know our score on >> each round. Does this mean that there as many sessions as rounds? No, >> clearly not. > >The Laws do not define session very well, it only states that a session >must contain more than one round. Those regulations I have seen define >a session as an extended periode of play, separated from another periode >by a pause significantly longer than the pause between rounds. I do not know what you mean by not very well, since this was a change in the Laws to what was wanted away from a poorer definition before. What the Laws do is to leave the definition of the length of a session up to the sponsoring organisation. -- 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 Feb 28 02:04:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RF4LG10857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:04:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com (mta06ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RF4DH10837 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:04:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS75EQ00.18V for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:54:26 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/526713); 28 Feb 2002 00:54:21 Message-ID: <021e01c1bf9e$aea87c60$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:54:34 +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 Burn wrote: >Quite so, but for a reason that may not have been apparent. I am not >sure what "self-alerting" means ... It means that all bids above 3NT alert themselves; there is no alert and the opponents simply guess whether it's natural or not, or they may, if they prefer, ask politely about the 4C opening. This means that *all* 4C calls are never alerted in Australia. No exceptions, not even NAMYATS. As soon as one becomes declarer or dummy, one *must* let the opponents know of any self-alerting calls made in the auction. The above information is needed in order to recognise one of N/S's infractions. At the end of the auction, North's self-alerting Pass of 5C should have been alerted to the opponents. By then, N and S were aware about the NAMYATS possibility (North fully and South at least partially), so they have to let the opening leader know that the Pass of the forcing 5C bid showed clubs. Obviously, given that this rather routine infraction affected East's lead, the score should be adjusted to 5CX -1 (-100) for both sides. By the way, I have assumed that the "NIL VUL" was correct and the 1150 was incorrect. Although this seems to be a very easy ruling, non-Australians, not knowing our regulations, would be unable to rule as above. Someone suggested that West's double was flawed, or worse. He doubled a contract that, but for the above infraction, fails because he has a trick, and his partner, as expected on the bidding, has two tricks. How anyone could describe this as irrational bridge is beyond me. And discarding a diamond is not the worst play anyone has ever done, e.g. I suppose declarer might be void in diamonds occasionally. If East were to have to hold onto DKJx, it might be good for West to hold onto other cards. Seems OK to me. >At any rate, it seems to me that East may have been under >some misapprehension as to the significance of 4C before >he doubled it. If that is so, there are grounds for considering >that East-West might have been damaged because East's >initial action was predicated on some misinformation as to the >meaning of 4C in the North-South methods. As I tried to explain above, East was at the time lacking information, but that was East's fault for not asking, not N/S's fault. Steve wrote: >> No matter what it said on the CC, in view of the auction I am >>inclined to think that the true agreement was "clubs." David Burn wrote: >You have just won the Herman de Wael School Prize for Muddle-Headed >Thinking, previously won only by Herman de Wael, but that in the last >seven consecutive years. If the convention card said that 4C showed >hearts, then the North-South agreement for any and all ruling purposes >is that 4C showed hearts. For either of North and South to tell anyone >otherwise is misinformation; for either of them to tell anyone so is >full discharge of their obligations under Law. Having grown up with such literary classics as The Muddle Headed Wombat (no kidding), I feel qualified to disagree .... for which purpose I am repeating David's above paragraph: >Thinking, previously won only by Herman de Wael, but that in the last >seven consecutive years. If the convention card said that 4C showed >hearts, then the North-South agreement for any and all ruling purposes >is that 4C showed hearts. OK. >For either of North and South to tell anyone otherwise is >misinformation; for either of them to tell anyone so is full discharge >of their obligations under Law. Not OK at all IMO - "full discharge"? Law 75C says: "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience", using the word *or*, which means "ALL special information conveyed to him by ... partnership experience" (sorry to shout). North knew that the partnership had at least some (very fresh) experience that 4C might not be based on a heart suit. He should have disclosed this to EW. The Law actually tells him to. Doesn't it? North might have said, at the very least, "it shows hearts, but our partnership experience of this is not perfect". The Law tells him to disclose the partnership experience. He can hardly have forgotten this experience when it happened only a few seconds earlier. :) IMO that is the second infraction by NS. When I showed Peter Newman's original post to another local TD, without any comment from me, and like me no prior knowledge of the case, he came to exactly the same conclusion that I came to - that North failed to discharge his legal responsibilty under Law 75C. So it isn't just me who thinks this is so. >I see no mention in the original post of any convention card, though, so >perhaps this assertion is based on a later and purely hypothetical view. Every pair in this particular event provides one or two CCs, which are not necessarily placed in visible places. Most of the CC's are the NSW ( = Sydney) design rather than the ABF (= National) design. The former have no particular spot for a NAMYATS 4C, other than the "Other Conventions" section on the back. Peter Gill Sydney, NSW, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:08:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RF89v11589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:08:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RF7xH11560 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:07:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75091.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.83]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1REw4827405 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:58:04 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7CF41A.7000201@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:58:34 +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] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <000d01c1bf90$1bdc41e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > I have a feeling you are pulling the "convention" term too far: > If the auction goes (natural): > Partner Me > 1S - 1NT > 2H - 2S > > My 2S bid shows preference for spades. > Indeed - and you are bidding them, are you not? That seems natural to me. > You could similarly argue that it also shows non-preference > for Hearts, but I would never accept that that makes my 2H > bid a conventional call. (Nor do I believe you would argue) > > If the auction goes: > LHO Partner RHO Me > 1S 2NT* pass 3C > > (2NT showing 5-5 in minors) > My 3C call is in no way conventional, it simply shows > preference for clubs and willingness to play in that suit. > Exactly, and you are bidding clubs, showing a preference for clubs over diamonds. > On the contrary: > Partner: 2D (multi) > Me: 2H > > is obviously conventional, being a response showing absolutely > no values except an accept to play in Hearts if that was partner's > intention. (I could be void in hearts) > I agree. You are conveying a message. "If you have hearts, I want to play at the two-level, if not, let's see later". Well, how about the meaning then (after a call showing a one-coloured two-suiter) of 2Cl as : "if you have the blacks, I want to play 2Cl, if not, let's see later". Seems like it's the same as with the 2He over multi. > regards Sven > > > -- 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 Feb 28 02:18:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFIJm12096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:18:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03ps.bigpond.com (mta03ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFIAH12090 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta03ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS761Z00.65P for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:08:23 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/534815); 28 Feb 2002 01:08:18 Message-ID: <022301c1bfa0$a18e1380$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:08:31 +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 Ton Kooijman wrote: >This kind of irregularity causes a lot of problems and really frustrates >our game. We need to have found a solution when presenting the new >set of laws. Personally I am thinking of defining 'partnership agreement' >more demanding than we use it now. I think this is totally unnecessary. As expressed in a separate post just sent to this thread, I believe that all it takes is to read Law 75C as it currently stands, and to apply that Law. IMO the wording of Law 75C [dare I describe a Law thus on BLML :) ] is perfect. >We might need to add that a pair is not allowed to use conventions and >their implications for the subsequent calls without being able to explain >the meaning. Like Eric Landau, I believe that this is unnecessary and would be disastrous. Not all games are the high level games that you BLMLers play in. Last Friday evening I had a lovely game at Revesby. One pair bid 1NT - 2C - 2NT. The 2C bidder had a 3=3=3=4 six count. She had recently learnt Stayman, but had forgotten under the heat of the moment and responded because she had 6+ points, forgetting that it was 1NT not 1-of-a-suit that she was responding to. Her partner responded 2NT instead of 2D, because although she remembered Stayman, she was reluctant to bid her doubleton in her 3=3=2=5= shape. To catch the tens of thousands of such players in the net would be horrible IMO. Law 25B opened a can of worms which will close when it is removed, but may remain in some form if it is retained in a modified form. I think that introducing new stuff that is complex can be dangerous. I actually like the game of bridge as it is. One final thought. If you want to find a place to try out possible new Laws, to give them a test run, how about Australia? If I weren't leaving to head for London next month, I might not make this suggestion. :) Peter Gill Australia for another month. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:31:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFV1512109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:31:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f142.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFUrH12105 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:30:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:21:06 -0800 Received: from 172.148.183.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:21:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.148.183.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:21:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 15:21:06.0215 (UTC) FILETIME=[602B6B70:01C1BFA2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Gordon Rainsford >Michael Schmahl wrote: > > 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." > >3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C *if you have clubs*." It mightn't say anything about the 3C bidder's hand at all. That might depend on what 2NT would have meant. Then we are stuck again wondering if a meaningless bid is conventional. If there's any hand 3C promises, I can't think of it, but it likely denies the one given next. >Peter Gill wrote: >Thus, with x, Qxxx, KJ10xxxx, x, one should call 3C, then if doubled, >escape to 3D. This makes it clear that 3C is indeed conventional. Since partner probably has the blacks rather than the reds, pass would be my action. If I'm wrong, it'll be a lovely and well-attended funeral. I hope. >Peter Gill wrote: >Well, with Q10xx, Jx, x, KJxxxx, one is not at all *willing* to play in >3H,.... Thus the 3H call may run into >problems with the "willingness" part of the definition of "convention", The call does not have to show willingness to avoid being a convention. It has to show something other than or in addition to willingness to be a convention, at least the way I read it. Personally, I'll need a bit more information from the contestants' convention card before I enjoy this thread. There are a bit too many 'what ifs' about the possible meanings of bids. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:31:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFVKK12115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:31:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFVAH12111 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:31:11 +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 QAA18647; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:18:40 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA23389; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:21:26 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227162336.00a462d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:25:23 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy In-Reply-To: <000d01c1bf90$1bdc41e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:09 27/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >If the auction goes: >LHO Partner RHO Me >1S 2NT* pass 3C > >(2NT showing 5-5 in minors) >My 3C call is in no way conventional, it simply shows >preference for clubs and willingness to play in that suit. > >On the contrary: >Partner: 2D (multi) >Me: 2H > >is obviously conventional, being a response showing absolutely >no values except an accept to play in Hearts if that was partner's >intention. (I could be void in hearts) AG : I wouldn't even call this a convention. It means 'on basis of what I know thus far, 2H could well be where we will play". We will more often than not. To me, it resambles a completion of a transfer. >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 Thu Feb 28 02:35:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFZZJ12134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:35:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFZRH12130 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:35:27 +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 QAA19496; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:22:52 +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 QAA28076; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:25:38 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227162641.00a46b30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:29:38 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy In-Reply-To: <01e501c1bf99$2517c1e0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:14 28/02/2002 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Well, with Q10xx, Jx, x, KJxxxx, one is not at all *willing* to play in >3H, >but one may be forced to bid 3H because deliberate insufficient bids >are (arguably, for - oddly enough - there seems to be no Law saying >or even hinting thus) against the rules. AG : what about L72B2 ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:38:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFc2q12149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:38:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFbrH12145 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:37:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1957.bb.online.no [80.212.215.165]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA20767; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:28:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001901c1bfa3$59c5e340$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:27:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You are talking teams (of 4?) I am referring to pairs contest. There is no way you can have three pairs play out a round robin in two rounds. Please let us discuss the same type of events! Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > At 07:36 AM 2/27/02, Sven wrote: > > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > > > AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where > > all > > > contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can > > run a > > > round robin and avoid the sitout. > > > >????? > > > >I am talking about events for pairs where there is an odd number > >of pairs participating. Where the pairs are seated in round three is > >decided from their rank after the first round, where they are seated > >in round four is decided from their rank after the second round and > >so on. > > > >Obviously > >1: we shall have a "sit-out" pair in each round, and > >2: This "sit-out" pair must have some artificial adjusted score awarded > >(or their ranking will be meaningless). > > In the ACBL, when there is an odd number of pairs in a Swiss event, > three teams are selected (ostensibly) at random to play a three-team > round robin over the first two rounds. That produces results after > round 2 that are comparable to those of the teams that have played two > head-to-head matches, and the three teams are reintegrated with the > field for round 3 matching. Starting with rounds 3-4, the three teams > for the three-way round-robin match on each set of two rounds are > chosen from the bottom of the field, with the proviso that no team > plays in the three-way more than once. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > 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 Feb 28 02:45:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFj7a12168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:45:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFixH12164 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:45:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS77AO00.7GH for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:35:12 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.111 ([144.138.141.111]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/549039); 28 Feb 2002 01:35:07 Message-ID: <02ab01c1bfa4$6094f0c0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:35:20 +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 Renamed sub-thread of "Enjoy": Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>because deliberate insufficient bids >>are (arguably, for - oddly enough - there seems to be no Law saying >>or even hinting thus) against the rules. > >AG : what about L72B2 ? Law 72B2 refers to "a law". Which law? If there is no such law, then Law 72B2 is irrelevant. Law 18 is the source of the defect, if there is a defect. If there really is nothing in the Laws to prevent Deliberate Insufficient Bids, should provision be made thus in Regulations? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:55:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFsun12181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:54:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RFslH12177 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:54:47 +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 QAA21102; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:44:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA19736; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:45:01 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227163215.00a44260@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:49:02 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In-Reply-To: <021e01c1bf9e$aea87c60$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:54 28/02/2002 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >It means that all bids above 3NT alert themselves; there is no alert >and the opponents simply guess whether it's natural or not, or they >may, if they prefer, ask politely about the 4C opening. This means >that *all* 4C calls are never alerted in Australia. No exceptions, not >even NAMYATS. As soon as one becomes declarer or dummy, one *must* >let the opponents know of any self-alerting calls made in the auction. AG : they already know about it, because 4C always is. >The above information is needed in order to recognise one of N/S's >infractions. > >At the end of the auction, North's self-alerting Pass of 5C should have >been alerted to the opponents. By then, N and S were aware about the >NAMYATS possibility (North fully and South at least partially), so they >have to let the opening leader know that the Pass of the forcing 5C bid >showed clubs. AG : I don't get it. Obviously, either : - all self alerting bids have to be explained ; and East knows, when North doesn't explain, that North commits an infraction, and should have asked for an explanation (in short, he failed to protect himself) - no self-alerting bids have to be explained ; and North didn't commit any infraction. That one has to wait before knowing whether North had to explain means that he won't always be compelled to explain, and this contradicts your statement above "all self-alerting bids have to be explained". In short, the concept of the Pass being self-alerting is contrary to the concept that not exlpaining it could be used against the player after the deal. Of course, East could have called the TD when receiving no spontaneously explanation before the lead, and told him North has to explain, and didn't. He would than have recieved the explanation. >As I tried to explain above, East was at the time lacking >information, but that was East's fault for not asking, not N/S's fault. AG : my views exactly. How could this possibly be different at the time of the lead ? North *has* to explain, he doesn't and you let him go away with it ? Your fault. >Every pair in this particular event provides one or two CCs, which are >not necessarily placed in visible places. AG : isn't this an infraction ? > Most of the CC's are the >NSW ( = Sydney) design rather than the ABF (= National) design. >The former have no particular spot for a NAMYATS 4C, other than >the "Other Conventions" section on the back. AG : how easier it would be with the WBC CC ! Why do so few countries use it ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 02:58:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFwRJ12196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:58:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFwIH12192 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:58:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3074.bb.online.no [80.212.220.2]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21436; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:48:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002901c1bfa6$33dd44e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <000d01c1bf90$1bdc41e0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7CF41A.7000201@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:48:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ...... > > On the contrary: > > Partner: 2D (multi) > > Me: 2H > > > > is obviously conventional, being a response showing absolutely > > no values except an accept to play in Hearts if that was partner's > > intention. (I could be void in hearts) > > > > > I agree. You are conveying a message. "If you have hearts, > I want to play at the two-level, if not, let's see later". > > Well, how about the meaning then (after a call showing a > one-coloured two-suiter) of 2Cl as : "if you have the > blacks, I want to play 2Cl, if not, let's see later". > Seems like it's the same as with the 2He over multi. > No, the 2H response to multi is a "slave" response denying the interest to demand with 2NT or invite (in hearts) with 2S. As such it must undoubtfully be deemed as a conventional call. I agree with all those who find your 2C response (as the 3C response in the original post) in some sort of a grey zone, but it does after all show a preference for clubs doesn't it? An easier parallell is YESLEK where a 2C overcall over a 1NT opening shows either diamonds or both majors. Here I would rule a 2D response conventional and the pass or 2S bid over partners possible subsequent 2H as non-conventional. But I would appreciate some guidance to what extent answers to conventional calls may be considered non-conventional, particularly when there is a fine distinction between the answer being a preference and just a "slave" response. 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 Feb 28 02:59:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RFxOp12208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RFxFH12204 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:59:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3074.bb.online.no [80.212.220.2]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA23276; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:49:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1bfa6$55d9d4a0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020227162336.00a462d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:49:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Good point, actually! Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy > At 14:09 27/02/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >If the auction goes: > >LHO Partner RHO Me > >1S 2NT* pass 3C > > > >(2NT showing 5-5 in minors) > >My 3C call is in no way conventional, it simply shows > >preference for clubs and willingness to play in that suit. > > > >On the contrary: > >Partner: 2D (multi) > >Me: 2H > > > >is obviously conventional, being a response showing absolutely > >no values except an accept to play in Hearts if that was partner's > >intention. (I could be void in hearts) > > AG : I wouldn't even call this a convention. It means 'on basis of what I > know thus far, 2H could well be where we will play". We will more often > than not. To me, it resambles a completion of a transfer. > > > >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 Thu Feb 28 03:09:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RG85212235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:08:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RG7sH12231 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:07:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3539.bb.online.no [80.212.221.211]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA29533; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:58:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <02ab01c1bfa4$6094f0c0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:57:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Gill" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > >AG : what about L72B2 ? > > > Law 72B2 refers to "a law". Which law? If there is no such law, then Law > 72B2 is irrelevant. Law 18 is the source of the defect, if there is a > defect. > > If there really is nothing in the Laws to prevent Deliberate > Insufficient > Bids, should provision be made thus in Regulations? Law 18A specifies the proper form for a bid Law 18B specifies what it takes for a bid to superseed a previous bid Law 18C defines the term sufficient bid Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal and the penalties for violating it, and finally Law 72B2 clearly states that an intentional violation of any of these laws is improper ("must not") 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 Feb 28 03:14:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGCVO12296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:12:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGCMH12292 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:12:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-16-167.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.16.167] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16g6XO-0004kn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:02:38 +0000 Message-ID: <3C7D031E.6BF730E3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:02:39 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > In the ACBL, when there is an odd number of pairs in a Swiss event, > three teams are selected (ostensibly) at random to play a three-team > round robin over the first two rounds. That produces results after > round 2 that are comparable to those of the teams that have played two > head-to-head matches, and the three teams are reintegrated with the > field for round 3 matching. Starting with rounds 3-4, the three teams > for the three-way round-robin match on each set of two rounds are > chosen from the bottom of the field, with the proviso that no team > plays in the three-way more than once. > This sounds like the method of dealing with an odd number of teams in a Swiss Teams event, not a method for dealing with an odd number of pairs in a Swiss Pairs event. This is perhaps because, I am told, the ACBL does not run any Swiss Pairs events. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford London UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 03:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGHAr12308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:17:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGH3H12304 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:17:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS78S300.HAH for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:07:15 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.148 ([144.138.141.148]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 2/1115467); 28 Feb 2002 02:07:11 Message-ID: <000801c1bfa8$dad09c00$948d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:07:23 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >>It means that all bids above 3NT alert themselves; there is no alert >>and the opponents simply guess whether it's natural or not, or they >>may, if they prefer, ask politely about the 4C opening. This means >>that *all* 4C calls are never alerted in Australia. No exceptions, not >>even NAMYATS. As soon as one becomes declarer or dummy, one *must* >>let the opponents know of any self-alerting calls made in the auction. > >AG : they already know about it, because 4C always is. Sorry, I wrote one word wrongly - "self-alerting" in the last line should have said "alertable".... As soon as one becomes declarer or dummy, one *must* let the opponents know of any alertable calls above 3NT which were made during the auction. My apologies. I have attached most of the relevant Regulations at the bottom of this post, for any fanatics out there. I wrote another word wrongly above - it should have been "calls" not "bids" in the first line. [snip] >>Every pair in this particular event provides one or two CCs, which are >>not necessarily placed in visible places. > >AG : isn't this an infraction ? I just had a look through the regulations (all 17 pages, which are online), and I couldn't find anything which would make it an infraction. >> Most of the CC's are the >>NSW ( = Sydney) design rather than the ABF (= National) design. >>The former have no particular spot for a NAMYATS 4C, other than >>the "Other Conventions" section on the back. > >AG : how easier it would be with the WBC CC ! >Why do so few countries use it ? Because the card play section is unintelligible to the rank and file players, so it would give the better players an unfair advantage. Peter Gill. NSWBA REGULATIONS (used in Sydney) >Self Alerting Call - a call that, because it may have many possible meanings, will usually not be natural. These are doubles, redoubles, cue bids of opponents’ suits (including skip cue bids) and all calls above 3NT. During the course of an auction, these bids are not to be alerted. Skip Bid - a bid that jumps one or more levels of the auction. For example, all two and higher level opening bids are skip bids. Cue Bid - a bid of a suit named by an opponent or of a suit shown by an opponent’s call. For example, if an opponent bids 1D showing spades, then a bid of either 1S or 2D is a cue bid (and hence would be self alerting). 7.3 Alertable Calls 7.3.1 The general principle is to alert calls which the opponents may not fully understand, or may reasonably misinterpret. All natural bids that convey a meaning that the opponents may not expect must be alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other calls that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the normal meaning ascribed to them. 7.5.2 Self alerting calls (doubles, redoubles, cue bids of opponents’ suits, and all calls above 3NT) are not alerted. 7.5.5 In the case of a player forgetting what his/her partner's (alertable) call means, the following procedure is to be adopted. The player must still alert, and explain that the meaning has been forgotten. The Director should then be called. 7.7 Explanations 7.7.1 At the conclusion of any of its auctions that included self alerting calls, the declaring side should offer to give a full explanation of the auction. The defenders are under no such obligation, since by doing so they may convey unauthorised information. Note that declarer may ask about the meaning of any of the opponents' calls whenever it is declarer's or dummy's turn to play. Declarers who fail to ask about the meaning of any of the defenders' alerted or self alerting calls shall have no redress. 7.7.2 If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be given. This includes any conventional or partnership agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on partnership experience. Explanations may well include distributions and point ranges specifically excluded by a call, as well as those shown directly. When giving explanations, it is not necessary to repeat information given earlier in the hand, unless such information is requested. 7.7.3 If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, players must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for example), and not try to offer a possible explanation. In all such cases, players should not offer explanations such as "I take it to mean.....". When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, players are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to opponents on request. 7.7.4 Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are many variations of most conventions, and a more specific explanation is normally required. Similarly, the use of "standard" or "natural" to describe calls, signals or leads is not acceptable - nor are the terms "weak", "strong" or "intermediate" - without appropriate qualification. 7.7.6 Players should not divulge knowledge or conclusions they have reached based on their own card holdings, or as a consequence of their general bridge knowledge. 7.8 Misinformation It is implicit in the Laws relating to misinformation that a partnership should know its own system. The Director may impose a penalty upon any pair which consistently displays ignorance of its system and/or specific conventions, and may prohibit such a pair from playing any such system. 7.9 Failure to Alert/Mistaken (or Forgotten) Explanation When there has been a failure to alert, or a mistaken alert, or misexplanation given, the following principles apply: * If a member of the offending side becomes declarer/dummy: Before the opening lead is made, declarer and/or dummy are required by Law to call the Director and, in his/her presence, correct the failure to alert, the mistaken alert, and/or the misexplanation. * If the offending side become defenders: No correction can be given until the end of play, at which time, after the Director has been called, the correction must be given. 7.10 Tournament Director's Responsibility 7.10.1 Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. 7.10.2 When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred (unless they can demonstrate the inability to enquire because, in so doing, they would have conveyed unauthorised information, and/or given opponents information to which they were not entitled). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 03:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGiRk12356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:44:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGiJH12352 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:44:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d354.iae.nl [212.61.5.100]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 436F820F3D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:34:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:21:56 +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 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: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > In-Reply-To: <3C7B6F50.9000409@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > > > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for > > those boards, that means 72%. > > But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they > > indeed said this, they are not fair. > > It does not appear manifestly unfair to me. It just feels right that any > score awarded reflects the current session rather than many. With two > "equal" sessions it seems reasonable to average the percentages obtained > in each to get an overall score. > BS It seems illegal (one session Law88) > Tim > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 03:45:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGj0Y12368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:45:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGipH12364 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:44:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16g72q-0007bW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:35:09 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227112216.00b0f6f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:36:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <001901c1bfa3$59c5e340$6700a8c0@alcatelno> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 AM 2/27/02, Sven wrote: >You are talking teams (of 4?) I was indeed. In the ACBL, "Swiss movement" *means* teams of four. Swiss-matched pairs contests are unknown here. My post was a follow-up to Todd's, who mentioned "round robin" and got "?????" from Sven in reply; I'm sure Todd fell into the same error I did. >I am referring to pairs contest. >There is no way you can have three pairs play out >a round robin in two rounds. >Please let us discuss the same type of events! Sorry for being unresponsive. Of course, when you have an odd number of pairs you must have an idle pair on every round. At least now I understand Sven's problem. He has sit-outs which are "scheduled" insofar as it is known in advance that they will occur, but "unscheduled" in that the identity of the contestants who will actually sit out is not known in advance. The ACBL does not have any events in which this can occur. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 03:47:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGl6612380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:47:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGkwH12376 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:46:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS7A5Z00.88Q for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:37:11 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.148 ([144.138.141.148]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 2/1131556); 28 Feb 2002 02:37:06 Message-ID: <003501c1bfad$097207c0$948d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:37:18 +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 Sven Pran wrote: >Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal >and the penalties for violating it, and finally >Law 72B2 clearly states that an intentional violation of any >of these laws is improper ("must not") IMO you seem to be working backwards here, to make the Laws do what you want them to do, when that is not what they seem to say. I presume you are referring to the three words in brackets "(treated as legal)" in Law 27A, as I cannot find anything else in Law 27 that is relevant. If so, IMO that is a misguided approach. So you say that a Deliberate Insufficient Bid (DIB) is a violation of Law 27. It simply isn't. There is nothing in Law 27 that a DIB violates. Which statement in Law 27A is being infringed? Law 27A clearly says that one's LHO can treat an Insufficient Bid (IB) as legal. This means that under certain circumstances an IB is legal. It makes no comment about whether an insufficent bid is ever illegal under other circumstances. What have I missed? Maybe my Australian copy of the Laws is different from your European one? I would have expected that somewhere in the Laws, there would be a requirement for each bid to supersede the previous bid. Despite the definitions in Law 18, this requirement seems to be missing. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 03:59:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RGxXZ12399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:59:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (rc.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RGxOH12395 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:59:24 +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 RAA06671; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:48:50 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA21723; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:49:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227174920.00a3db00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:53:40 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <02ab01c1bfa4$6094f0c0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:35 28/02/2002 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Renamed sub-thread of "Enjoy": >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > >>because deliberate insufficient bids > >>are (arguably, for - oddly enough - there seems to be no Law saying > >>or even hinting thus) against the rules. > > > >AG : what about L72B2 ? > > >Law 72B2 refers to "a law". Which law? If there is no such law, then Law >72B2 is irrelevant. Law 18 is the source of the defect, if there is a >defect. AG : L18B and 18D tell us what constitutes an insufficient bid. L27A tells us that an insufficient bid may be considered as no infraction. L27B tells us that it might, however, be considered as one. Perhaps L72B2 should speak of any infraction of "action that can be considered an infraction". But I'd rather have L27 tell that an insufficient bid is an infraction, but might be deinfractionized (?) if the NOS does want so. By the way, the fact tahat we all speak of OS and NOS in case of an insufficient bid is evidence that we consider it as an 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 Thu Feb 28 04:28:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RHS4312424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:28:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RHRsH12420 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:27:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1583.bb.online.no [80.212.214.47]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA26048; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:18:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1bfb2$b82e23c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020227112216.00b0f6f0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:18:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 10:27 AM 2/27/02, Sven wrote: > > >You are talking teams (of 4?) > > I was indeed. In the ACBL, "Swiss movement" *means* teams of > four. Swiss-matched pairs contests are unknown here. My post was a > follow-up to Todd's, who mentioned "round robin" and got "?????" from > Sven in reply; I'm sure Todd fell into the same error I did. > > >I am referring to pairs contest. > >There is no way you can have three pairs play out > >a round robin in two rounds. > >Please let us discuss the same type of events! > > Sorry for being unresponsive. Of course, when you have an odd number > of pairs you must have an idle pair on every round. > > At least now I understand Sven's problem. He has sit-outs which are > "scheduled" insofar as it is known in advance that they will occur, but > "unscheduled" in that the identity of the contestants who will actually > sit out is not known in advance. The ACBL does not have any events in > which this can occur. Thank you. Except that there is no "problem" here in Norway. (And such events have become increasingly popular here, two years ago we even established a separate national open championship which last year assembled some 140 pairs playing 30 rounds for a total of 90 boards - requiring 70 copies of each of the 90 boards for this event alone) As I have mentioned earlier we find it quite natural, fair and consistent to apply law88 indiscriminately on all cases where a pair cannot play a board, whether that is according to schedule (but they would have played it had they had opponents at the time), or for any other reason (except of course when they are at fault themselves). It appears to me that we shall have much less problems if the number of participants changes during a multi-session event. (Such things do happen, and we do not want to reject pairs from entering a contest if at all we can take them in, particularly if they fill up a vacant seat for the remaining sessions) Without really knowing I believe that at least Denmark and Sweden also use the same approach, we have that much cooperation in Scandinavia. And for what it is worth, regardless of Laws 12 and 88 our SO's are in any case authorized to maintain our practice in regulations. 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 Feb 28 04:45:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RHjSQ12447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:45:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RHjKH12443 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:45:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11464; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:35:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200202271735.JAA11464@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:37:18 +1100." <003501c1bfad$097207c0$948d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:35:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal > >and the penalties for violating it, and finally > > >Law 72B2 clearly states that an intentional violation of any > >of these laws is improper ("must not") > > IMO you seem to be working backwards here, to make the Laws do > what you want them to do, when that is not what they seem to say. > > I presume you are referring to the three words in brackets > "(treated as legal)" in Law 27A, as I cannot find anything else > in Law 27 that is relevant. If so, IMO that is a misguided approach. I think there are at least three things in Law 27 that imply that an insufficient bid is illegal: (1) The phrase "treated as legal" in L27A, which would make no sense if the insufficient bid was already legal. (2) The reference in 27B1(b) to the non-offending side, and references in the rest of 27 to "offender". The only relevant definition of "offend" I can find in my dictionary is "to violate a law or rule". (3) Law 27B2 refers to a "penalty" for an insufficient bid, and it doesn't make sense to me that the Laws would impose a penalty for something that is not illegal. > I would have expected that somewhere in the Laws, there would be > a requirement for each bid to supersede the previous bid. Despite > the definitions in Law 18, this requirement seems to be missing. Yes, and I'm not sure why it's missing---there must be some historical reason for this, that later keepers of the Laws didn't realize ought to be clarified. Nevertheless, the current Laws make it clear enough that an insufficient bid is intended to be a violation of the Laws, even if the Laws don't come right out and say it. You may think this is a misguided approach---but I don't, because I believe it's already been established on BLML and elsewhere that the Laws' authors are imperfect humans and do not always get the language precisely right, and in cases like this where it's clear what was intended, we ought to follow what they intended rather than trying to create a loophole out of a linguistic oversight. -- 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 Feb 28 04:55:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RHso512466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:54:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RHsgH12462 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:54:43 +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 g1RHitM17312; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:44:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:42:55 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020226083552.00b09c60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020227124500-r01010800-1aded3df-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 2/26/02 at 8:55 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > If there is one thing that really will change the game of duplicate > bridge beyond recognition, it is the notion of making it illegal for a > player, or a partnership, not to know what they're doing. If we > discourage ignorant novices when they're starting out -- and being > "ruled against" for the crime of not knowing how to bid correctly will > surely do that -- where will our experienced experts come from? I agree. However, the ACBL General Conditions of Contest say this: A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed So apparently our concern is already 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 Thu Feb 28 05:06:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RI66213538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RI5uH13511 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:05:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1RHtwv00571; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:58 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:58 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1RHtww24187; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:58 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:58 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 RAA07755; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:57 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA25125; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:56 GMT Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:56 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200202271755.RAA25125@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: GillP@bigpond.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 02:35 28/02/2002 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > >Renamed sub-thread of "Enjoy": > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >Peter Gill wrote: > > >>because deliberate insufficient bids > > >>are (arguably, for - oddly enough - there seems to be no Law saying > > >>or even hinting thus) against the rules. > > > > > >AG : what about L72B2 ? > > > > > >Law 72B2 refers to "a law". Which law? If there is no such law, then Law > >72B2 is irrelevant. Law 18 is the source of the defect, if there is a > >defect. > > AG : L18B and 18D tell us what constitutes an insufficient bid. L27A tells > us that an insufficient bid may be considered as no infraction. L27B tells > us that it might, however, be considered as one. Perhaps L72B2 should speak > of any infraction of "action that can be considered an infraction". But I'd > rather have L27 tell that an insufficient bid is an infraction, but might > be deinfractionized (?) if the NOS does want so. By the way, the fact tahat > we all speak of OS and NOS in case of an insufficient bid is evidence that > we consider it as an infraction. I'm with Peter here. The error is not with L72 nor with L27 but with L18. We have L61-64 dealing with revokes, but we also have L44C telling us to follow suit. We also have L19A1 and L19B1 telling us when doubles and redoubles are legal. So we need Law 18, Z. Legal bid A bid is legal if it is the first bid of the auction or it supersedes the immediately previous bid. While we're at it, what about legal passes: Law 17.5 PASSES A. Legal pass A pass is always legal. B. Proper form The only correct form is the single word "Pass" or the two words "No bid". Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 05:14:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIEaA15083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:14:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RIEPH15043 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:14:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g8RJ-000FtP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:04:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:44:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227085614.00b09580@pop.starpower.net> 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 >In the ACBL, when there is an odd number of pairs in a Swiss event, >three teams are selected (ostensibly) at random to play a three-team >round robin over the first two rounds. Are you sure you are with the question? When you have a Swiss Pairs, with an odd number of pairs, you do not have "teams" and your solution does not work. > That produces results after >round 2 that are comparable to those of the teams that have played two >head-to-head matches, and the three teams are reintegrated with the >field for round 3 matching. Starting with rounds 3-4, the three teams >for the three-way round-robin match on each set of two rounds are >chosen from the bottom of the field, with the proviso that no team >plays in the three-way more than once. -- 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 Feb 28 05:15:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIFP815234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:15:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RIFEH15196 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:15:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g8Rn-000Fui-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:42:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes > AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where all >contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a >round robin and avoid the sitout. How do you run a round robin in a Swiss Pairs? -- 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 Feb 28 05:20:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIK8916136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:20:08 +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 g1RIJvH16112 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:19:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1RIACP16296 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:10:12 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > GordY, I think TonY did give a correct ruling. 3C would be > conventional, so no possibility of changing 2C to anything > that still allows partner to speak. While I think 3C probably was pass/correct or conventional in some other way it is faintly possible that the OS play "2NT asking, 3any is 4 card suit + game values" or some such - which sounds natural to me. I think this should have been checked. 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 Feb 28 05:29:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIT9W17720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:29:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RISwH17693 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:28:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3068.bb.online.no [80.212.219.252]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA20954; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:19:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002701c1bfbb$407fee40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200202271735.JAA11464@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:18:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" ....... > Yes, and I'm not sure why it's missing---there must be some historical > reason for this, that later keepers of the Laws didn't realize ought > to be clarified. Having my Encyclopedia of Bridge, first issue 1935 (!) at hand I looked up the laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge and found: 6: Each successive bid must name either a greater number of odd tricks than the last preceeding bid, or an equal number of a higher denomination. I have most of the later law books in my library, but don't think I care to investigate how this particular law disappeared. However, I really cannot see any problem here except with "lawyers" that request rulings according to the letter rather than to the obvious intent of the law. 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 Feb 28 05:39:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIdHM19670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:39:17 +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 g1RId7H19649 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:39:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11972; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:29:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200202271829.KAA11972@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:56 GMT." <200202271755.RAA25125@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:29:27 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > While we're at it, what about legal passes: > > Law 17.5 PASSES > > A. Legal pass > > A pass is always legal. Gosh, I hope that wording doesn't get into the Laws. Some BL's would use it to contend that a pass that takes advantage of UI is legal. Some additional verbiage would have to be added to make sure it's clear that this does not supersede Law 16. -- 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 Feb 28 05:39:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIdRH19695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:39:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.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 g1RIdFH19669 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:39:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.209] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16g8pQ-000MnY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:29:24 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:28:11 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1BFBC.8303B660.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:28:10 -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 Todd wrote: AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where all >contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a >round robin and avoid the sitout. DWS asked: How do you run a round robin in a Swiss Pairs? _____________________________________________ David, By Round Robin I think Todd is referring to what you and I know as a 'Triangle' Match. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 05:53:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIqri22083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:52:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RIqfH22052 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:52:42 +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 g1RIguM00676 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:42:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:13:59 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020227134302-r01010800-66c2853a-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 2/27/02 at 1:51 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > Well, doesn't 3Cl also show spade non-preference ? > "I know a convention when I see one" > The fact that a particular call can be passed out by partner > does not in itself mean that it is non-conventional. Playing a simple natural system, the bidding goes 1S-1NT-2C-2S, opponents passing throughout. 2S says "I prefer spades over clubs". IOW, club "non-preference". Am I to infer that 2S in this auction is conventional? 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 Feb 28 05:53:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RIqpc22080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:52:51 +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 g1RIqdH22047 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:52:39 +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 g1RIgrM00569 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:42:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:25:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <01ca01c1bf95$ca99e480$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <20020227134258-r01010800-4ec9fcec-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 2/28/02 at 12:23 AM, GillP@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) wrote: > In Australia, virtually every bridge club uses either ASE (created > by Ian McKinnon whose huge directing book is recommended) > or Masterscore (created by Martin Willcox). > > I use ASE. We simply press the "No Score" key and let the program > do whatever it does. There are other keys for Average, Any %, Passed > In etc. I presume this means that we do not use the Norwegian method. Yesterday, I discussed this thread briefly with a local club TD. Once she understood that I was not concerned with whether to give the departed contestant a penalty of some kind for leaving, she said two things: (1) if I can find somebody to sit in, say a kibitizer or [one of the two directors normally at this club], I'll do that; (2) if not, I just enter "no play" in the computer [ACBLScore]. Regarding a substitute, she didn't seem concerned whether anybody else at the table(s) in question had an opinion about any substitution. [Note: this is an open game, but consists mostly of novice and perhaps some low intermediate players; both TDs are considerably better players than that.] I *think* what "no play" does is figure out the average on all the played boards, and assign that score on the unplayed board(s). I have no idea whether that's either legal or advisable in any given situtation (including but not limited to the one under discussion). I was non-plussed by her answer, because it occurs to me that there is a danger here that TDs will rely on "the computer" to make things right, without an understanding of the underlying principles involved. I don't think that can be a good thing. And I note that, so far, I don't have a clue what underlying principles I'm supposed to understand in this case. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, 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 Feb 28 06:22:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJLo227500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:21:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RJLcH27471 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:21:39 +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 g1RJBrM17722 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:11:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:07:15 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-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 2/27/02 at 4:57 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal It doesn't say that, that I can see. 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 Feb 28 06:22:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJLq827507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 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 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 g1RJLeH27481 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:21:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1RJBtM17805 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:11:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:02:33 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <02ab01c1bfa4$6094f0c0$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <20020227141201-r01010800-5750b671-0904-0109@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 2/28/02 at 2:35 AM, GillP@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) wrote: > Law 72B2 refers to "a law". Which law? If there is no such law, then Law > 72B2 is irrelevant. Law 18 is the source of the defect, if there is a > defect. > > If there really is nothing in the Laws to prevent Deliberate > Insufficient Bids, should provision be made thus in Regulations? Law 18 defines "sufficient bid" and "insufficient bid", but makes no explicit statement which can be interepreted as requiring that a bid be sufficient. Nor can I find such a statement anywhere else in the Laws. However, the definition of "insufficient," according to my dictionary, is "not enough in amount or quality to satisfy some purpose or standard". It seems to me the implication of this is that an insufficient bid is an irregularity. This seems to be supported by the fact that Law 27 is included in Part II "Irregularities in Procedure" of the Laws. So I conclude that law 72B2 is relevant, and the law to which it refers in this case is Law 18. So no regulation is needed. 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 Feb 28 06:39:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJd9g00885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:39:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RJd0H00862 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16g9lM-0006ko-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:29:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227142301.00b14180@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:30:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In-Reply-To: <20020227124500-r01010800-1aded3df-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020226083552.00b09c60@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:42 PM 2/27/02, Ed wrote: >On 2/26/02 at 8:55 AM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > > > If there is one thing that really will change the game of duplicate > > bridge beyond recognition, it is the notion of making it illegal for a > > player, or a partnership, not to know what they're doing. If we > > discourage ignorant novices when they're starting out -- and being > > "ruled against" for the crime of not knowing how to bid correctly will > > surely do that -- where will our experienced experts come from? > >I agree. However, the ACBL General Conditions of Contest say this: > >A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in >probable >(to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their >opponents >did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a >convention that was employed > >So apparently our concern is already too late. :-( Oh my goodness! Here I am writing to BLML to say, in effect, what a "crackpot" idea this is, and now I find out that my very own NCBO has already implemented it! So now if my novice opponents screw up their conventional auction, and I can make a case for having been damaged, I can call the director and ask for redress. Neither my opponents nor my partner will ever have heard of such a rule, and it's 50-50 whether the TD will have (we have very good TDs in my area; I would expect the likelihood of a random ACBL TD knowing about this to be considerably less). But, thanks to BLML, I can set them all straight, by quoting the General Conditions of Contest. What fun; I can hardly wait. Almost as good as L25B. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 06:47:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJl9I02360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:47:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from relay2.softcomca.com ([168.144.1.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RJl0H02338 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:47:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from m2w035 ([168.144.108.35]) by relay2.softcomca.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:37:18 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 209.104.105.14 X-URL: http://www.mail2web.com/ Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? From: "vlnokmgn@videotron.ca" Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:39:48 -0500 To: "adam@irvine.com" , "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Reply-To: vlnokmgn@videotron.ca X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: JMail 3.7.0 by Dimac (www.dimac.net) Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2002 19:37:18.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A94A8E0:01C1BFC6] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1RJl2H02346 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Haven't we been overlooking the one Law that it seems to me is designed to just specifically deal with intentionally insufficient bids? Laws 23? Damaging Enforced Pass? Touché away! Original Message: ----------------- From: Adam Beneschan adam@irvine.com Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:35:40 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Peter Gill wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal > >and the penalties for violating it, and finally > > >Law 72B2 clearly states that an intentional violation of any > >of these laws is improper ("must not") > > IMO you seem to be working backwards here, to make the Laws do > what you want them to do, when that is not what they seem to say. > > I presume you are referring to the three words in brackets > "(treated as legal)" in Law 27A, as I cannot find anything else > in Law 27 that is relevant. If so, IMO that is a misguided approach. I think there are at least three things in Law 27 that imply that an insufficient bid is illegal: (1) The phrase "treated as legal" in L27A, which would make no sense if the insufficient bid was already legal. (2) The reference in 27B1(b) to the non-offending side, and references in the rest of 27 to "offender". The only relevant definition of "offend" I can find in my dictionary is "to violate a law or rule". (3) Law 27B2 refers to a "penalty" for an insufficient bid, and it doesn't make sense to me that the Laws would impose a penalty for something that is not illegal. > I would have expected that somewhere in the Laws, there would be > a requirement for each bid to supersede the previous bid. Despite > the definitions in Law 18, this requirement seems to be missing. Yes, and I'm not sure why it's missing---there must be some historical reason for this, that later keepers of the Laws didn't realize ought to be clarified. Nevertheless, the current Laws make it clear enough that an insufficient bid is intended to be a violation of the Laws, even if the Laws don't come right out and say it. You may think this is a misguided approach---but I don't, because I believe it's already been established on BLML and elsewhere that the Laws' authors are imperfect humans and do not always get the language precisely right, and in cases like this where it's clear what was intended, we ought to follow what they intended rather than trying to create a loophole out of a linguistic oversight. -- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 06:51:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJorv03040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:50:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RJofH02998 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:50:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1RJesM04949 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:40:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:23:38 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002701c1bfbb$407fee40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: <20020227144059-r01010800-3dd3a738-0904-0109@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 2/27/02 at 7:18 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > However, I really cannot see any problem here except with > "lawyers" that request rulings according to the letter rather than > to the obvious intent of the law. I recall a lecture in Quantum Mechanics given by Hans Bethe. At one point, he wrote an equation on the board, turned to the class and said "and obviously from this we get..." turned, and wrote another equation. Fourteen hands went up: "Sir, it may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me; can you explain, please?" It took him an hour and a half. :-) 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 Feb 28 06:51:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJowB03050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:50:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RJojH03016 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:50:46 +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 g1RJf0M05108 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:41:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:15:42 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <20020227144105-r01010800-7ed5b76a-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 2/27/02 at 5:21 PM, B.Schelen@iae.nl (Ben Schelen) wrote: > > It does not appear manifestly unfair to me. It just feels right that any > > score awarded reflects the current session rather than many. With two > > "equal" sessions it seems reasonable to average the percentages obtained > > in each to get an overall score. > > > > BS It seems illegal (one session Law88) This brings up a question I've been wondering about. In one of the local clubs, the Tuesday afternoon session usually consists of a newcomer section, a novice section (mostly players who have just "graduated" from newcomer), and an open section. Lately, the TDs have been awarding "overall" scores in the latter two sections. It seems to me that when two sections are playing completely different boards, which is what is happening here, an overcall score makes no sense. Shouldn't such a score reflect how people did *with the same boards*? Notwithstanding, of course, that if the sections are not the same size, a different number of boards may be played in each. 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 Feb 28 06:52:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RJqfS03337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.0xc159f150.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RJqVH03312 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:52:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id ACB601073CE for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:42:46 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:42:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <003501c1bfad$097207c0$948d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> <200202271735.JAA11464@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200202271735.JAA11464@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1RJqXH03316 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:35:40 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I think there are at least three things in Law 27 that imply that an >insufficient bid is illegal: > >(1) The phrase "treated as legal" in L27A, which would make no sense > if the insufficient bid was already legal. > >(2) The reference in 27B1(b) to the non-offending side, and references > in the rest of 27 to "offender". The only relevant definition of > "offend" I can find in my dictionary is "to violate a law or > rule". > >(3) Law 27B2 refers to a "penalty" for an insufficient bid, and it > doesn't make sense to me that the Laws would impose a penalty for > something that is not illegal. I would very much like to agree with all those points, but I am afraid (2) and (3) are both defeated by the existence of L25B, which specifically allows an action and then imposes a penalty on the "offender". Which is one of the reasons L25B is horrible. But as soon as we get rid of L25B, all three points will be fine. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 07:07:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RK6dR05851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:06:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RK6TH05824 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:06:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1715.bb.online.no [80.212.214.179]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA23483; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:55:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1bfc8$c5d639c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020227144059-r01010800-3dd3a738-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:55:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 2/27/02 at 7:18 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > > > However, I really cannot see any problem here except with > > "lawyers" that request rulings according to the letter rather than > > to the obvious intent of the law. > > I recall a lecture in Quantum Mechanics given by Hans Bethe. At one point, he > wrote an equation on the board, turned to the class and said "and obviously from > this we get..." turned, and wrote another equation. Fourteen hands went up: > "Sir, it may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me; can you explain, > please?" It took him an hour and a half. :-) I certainly do hope it wont take more than the time needed to read this to convince anybody that the obvious intent of laws 18 & 27 is to declare insufficient bids as illegal? 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 Feb 28 07:08:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RK7wD06097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:07:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RK7nH06074 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:07:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16gADG-0004Ci-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:58:06 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227143804.00b0c380@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:58:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <200202271735.JAA11464@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 12:35 PM 2/27/02, Adam wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > > > I would have expected that somewhere in the Laws, there would be > > a requirement for each bid to supersede the previous bid. Despite > > the definitions in Law 18, this requirement seems to be missing. > >Yes, and I'm not sure why it's missing---there must be some historical >reason for this, that later keepers of the Laws didn't realize ought >to be clarified. Nevertheless, the current Laws make it clear enough >that an insufficient bid is intended to be a violation of the Laws, >even if the Laws don't come right out and say it. You may think this >is a misguided approach---but I don't, because I believe it's already >been established on BLML and elsewhere that the Laws' authors are >imperfect humans and do not always get the language precisely right, >and in cases like this where it's clear what was intended, we ought to >follow what they intended rather than trying to create a loophole out >of a linguistic oversight. I think the laws do "come right out and say it"; it is explicit in the choice of the word "insufficient" [RHUD: "Not sufficient; lacking in what is necessary or required."]. In order for the language of the relevant laws to be interpretable by an ordinary English speaker in such a way as to make an "insufficient" bid not an infraction, the authors would have had to find some other word. (Or they could have explcitly redefined it in a footnote; I can imagine us debating whether insufficiency depends on the class of player involved.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 07:18:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RKIa907931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:18:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RKIQH07910 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:18:27 +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 g1RK9K520345 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:09:20 -0900 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:08:00 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Not as Enjoyable as it first looked In-Reply-To: <01cb01c1bf95$cde8c160$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Peter Gill wrote: > This is trickier than it seems. That darn definition of "convention" > in Chapter 1 of the Laws seems to want to make this > conventional-looking 3C call non-conventional, unless .... > > If the 3C bidder has a 0=6=6=1 shape, he is virtually forced to bid > 3C, although he has no "willingness" to play in 3C. In fact, he is > hoping > to be doubled and be able to redouble for rescue. Yes. > Thus, if my logic > is accepted, and I see no reason why it should not be, then 3C is by > definition conventional, and Tony's ruling is right. Non sequitur. Two reasons. One, as others pointed out, even if you are unwilling there has to be a message "other than" for it to be a convention. Two, I take the opinion that all nonforcing calls convey a willingness to play a contract if partner has a suitable hand. Not enthusiasm, mind you, but a willingness. If you hold a 1=6=6=0 hand and your partner preempts in clubs, you'll likely pass since 3D/3H would be forcing, despite knowing full well clubs is not your side's best suit. Is pass a convention now? God, I hope not! I do think your point of view is reasonable. I just happen not to agree with it. :) As for the "it shows a preference for spades over clubs" argument -- well.. I suppose my Standard American 1H opening is a convention now too because it shows I have more hearts than spades? It's that slippery negative-inference slope again... if we make pass-or-correct bids conventions we are making virtually all bids conventions. Like Michael Schmahl I think we are in a much greyer area with the 2nd or 3rd pass-or-correct step, and a solidly black one with the highest step. For the sake of definiteness let's use CRASH over NT rather than speculating about the system of the original players: 1NT - X( C+S or D+H) - Pass: 2C = denies ability to bid anything else, and I would have bid something else if I liked spades very much better than diamonds, but will bid 2C with equal or almost-equal black suits. And it can be passed. 2D = I have refused to play 2C as the final contract. Maybe I have a void in clubs and would rather play 2S, or maybe I am willing to stop in 2D opposite a red hand, but am about to blast to 5C if partner turns out to have the black suits. I haven't said anything specific yet at all. 2H = As above with regard to clubs; and in addition I have refused to play any number of diamonds under any circumstances. This one I am not sure whether I want it to be a convention or not, I could go either way. 2S = Now I've refused to play any number of clubs, and sent a specific message that I like at least one red suit well enough to want to go to the 3-level or beyond in it. If you want to call THIS a convention, that is fine with me. For the record I also regard the 2H response to multi as nonconventional (but 2S response conventional because it promises positive interest in the heart suit.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 07:29:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RKTMZ09709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail19.bigmailbox.com (mail19.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RKTDH09682 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:29:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail19.bigmailbox.com (8.11.6/8.10.0) id g1RKJPT32183; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:19:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:19:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200202272019.g1RKJPT32183@mail19.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [142.59.176.105] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:38:52 +0100 > Alain Gottcheiner Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >At 13:52 22/02/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>"I can't define an *elephant*, but I know him when I see him" >>>(Where is equity defined in the laws? See f.i. Law64C) >> >>Nowhere. Which is exactly why you can't use the word "equity" in >>your reply. You can say "I think it is equitable to scratch >>results", but you cannot say "It is right to scratch results BECAUSE >>it is equitable". That statement does not fly. > >AG : neither do elephants. > RFC 1925: The Twelve Networking Truths (3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. Michael. -- Michael Farebrother, Calgary AB. We have the information that they play SAYC, but on OKB this often means little more than the fact that the opponents can find the letters S, A, Y, and C on their keyboard. -- Adam Beneshan, on rec.games.bridge --------------------------------------------------------------------- Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com. Hundreds of choices. It's free! http://www.bigmailbox.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 Feb 28 07:33:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RKXKi10330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:33:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RKXAH10310 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:33:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1RKNPu08588 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:23:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:23 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> Ben Schelen wrote: > > > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for > > > those boards, that means 72%. > > > But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they > > > indeed said this, they are not fair. > > It does not appear manifestly unfair to me. It just feels right that > > any score awarded reflects the current session rather than many. With > > two "equal" sessions it seems reasonable to average the percentages > > obtained in each to get an overall score. > > > > BS It seems illegal (one session Law88) I think you misunderstood me. I felt that adjusted scores, if required, should be factored into the session in which they occur. That gives a percentage for the given session - to which I can then add the percentage for a second session (containing no adjusted scores) to get an overall average. For once it seems that the laws offer no option but to do what feels right. I didn't look at the laws initially since Herman had indicated it was a matter regulation, rather than law. Having read law 88 I can see that "60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board" generates a value of precisely 0 on a scheduled sit-out. 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 Feb 28 07:39:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RKdDg11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:39:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RKd3H11271 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:39:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16gAhU-0002Xc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:29:20 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227152419.00b12930@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:30:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <20020227134258-r01010800-4ec9fcec-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <01ca01c1bf95$ca99e480$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 2/27/02, Ed wrote: >I was non-plussed by her answer, because it occurs to me that there is >a danger >here that TDs will rely on "the computer" to make things right, without an >understanding of the underlying principles involved. I don't think >that can be a >good thing. Ed, don't be too harsh on your poor TD. People have been "rely[ing] on 'the computer' to make things right, without an understanding of the underlying principles involved" ever since the first computer produced its first printout with its first set of results. [Anyone interested in my collection of professional war stories on the subject may contact me personally.] She has done nothing that isn't part of the ordinary human condition in the 21st century. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 07:53:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RKrPv13699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:53:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RKrGH13673 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:53:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-32.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.32] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16gAvF-0005Jj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:43:33 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227153301.00b12b90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:44:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] In-Reply-To: <20020227144105-r01010800-7ed5b76a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:15 PM 2/27/02, Ed wrote: >This brings up a question I've been wondering about. In one of the >local clubs, >the Tuesday afternoon session usually consists of a newcomer section, >a novice >section (mostly players who have just "graduated" from newcomer), and >an open >section. Lately, the TDs have been awarding "overall" scores in the >latter two >sections. It seems to me that when two sections are playing completely >different >boards, which is what is happening here, an overcall score makes no sense. >Shouldn't such a score reflect how people did *with the same boards*? >Notwithstanding, of course, that if the sections are not the same size, a >different number of boards may be played in each. Overall scores across multi-section fields in which different sections played completely different boards used to be routine, before the advent of duplication from computer-generated hand records. It is a practice which is regarded (in the ACBL at least) as acceptable based on precedent, and I'm confident that it's still being done somewhere in ACBL-land. OTOH, the ACBL explicitly does not permit comparing scores for purposes of awarding "overall" master points across sections with differing master point limits, regardless of whether or not the boards are duplicated, so it sounds like what's being done in Ed's Tuesday afternoon club game is definitely contrary to ACBL regulations. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 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 Feb 28 08:18:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RLHr918433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:17:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RLHhH18411 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:17:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1RL7uM13924 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:07:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:01:09 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004701c1bfc8$c5d639c0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Message-ID: <20020227160801-r01010800-45de36e5-0904-0109@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 2/27/02 at 8:55 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > I certainly do hope it wont take more than the time needed to read this > to convince anybody that the obvious intent of laws 18 & 27 is to declare > insufficient bids as illegal? I did conclude that an insufficient bid is an irregularity, but I didn't use Law 27 to do so, and I don't think it's obvious - until you consider what "insufficient" means. :-) I posted my reasoning earlier. 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 Feb 28 08:48:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RLm5f24224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:48:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RLltH24188 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:47:56 +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 g1RLc4M20071 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:38:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:08:26 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Not as Enjoyable as it first looked To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020227163807-r01010800-a51a4d75-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 2/27/02 at 11:08 AM, siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) wrote: > It's that slippery > negative-inference slope again... if we make pass-or-correct bids > conventions we are making virtually all bids conventions. My immediate reaction to this was "maybe all bids *are* conventions." In support of this, I looked up the word on Encarta . I found this: 7.  BRIDGE coded bid:  a bid in bridge intended for a partner to understand differently than its face value, because of a prearranged bidding system. Is this a good definition? If so, how should we interpret "differently than its face value"? If this *is* a good definition, than a bid which is understood to mean (only?) its face value is not a convention. Right? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Feb 28 08:48:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RLmNt24275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:48:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RLmCH24248 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:48:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g1RLcLM20310; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:38:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:14:18 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227152419.00b12930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020227163822-r01010800-8c468c13-0904-0109@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 2/27/02 at 3:30 PM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > Ed, don't be too harsh on your poor TD. People have been "rely[ing] on > 'the computer' to make things right, without an understanding of the > underlying principles involved" ever since the first computer produced > its first printout with its first set of results. [Anyone interested > in my collection of professional war stories on the subject may contact > me personally.] She has done nothing that isn't part of the ordinary > human condition in the 21st century. I understand that. I've probably been guilty of it myself once or twice. I just don't think it's a good thing, ordinary human condition or not. :-) And I do think she has a basic understanding of duplicate scoring (as, I think, do I, with, in my case, strong emphasis on the word "basic" :). 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 Feb 28 08:59:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RLxEn25987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:59:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RLx3H25966 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:59:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0910.bb.online.no [80.212.211.142]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21585; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:49:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1bfd8$99610cc0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> <4.3.2.7.0.20020227153301.00b12b90@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:49:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" ...... > Overall scores across multi-section fields in which different sections > played completely different boards used to be routine, before the > advent of duplication from computer-generated hand records. It is a > practice which is regarded (in the ACBL at least) as acceptable based > on precedent, and I'm confident that it's still being done somewhere in > ACBL-land. WHAT ! - I'm shocked. > > OTOH, the ACBL explicitly does not permit comparing scores for purposes > of awarding "overall" master points across sections with differing > master point limits, regardless of whether or not the boards are > duplicated, so it sounds like what's being done in Ed's Tuesday > afternoon club game is definitely contrary to ACBL regulations. Well, at least some sense. 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 Feb 28 09:07:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RM6mV27231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:06:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1RM6eH27213 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:06:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA10776 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:08:56 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:55:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Active Ethics vs Legality? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:51:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/02/2002 08:55:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>However, I also believe that laws which are contrary to the Active >>Ethics ideal should be changed. For example, the 1997 change which >>made an OS player's withdrawn actions UI instead of AI to their >>partner. > > Can you give me an example that demonstrates why you think that was an >undesireable change? > >-Todd Correction of my original ambiguous statement: "An example of the laws being changed towards the direction of the Active Ethics ideal was the 1997 change which..." Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 09:17:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RMHA929140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:17:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RMH1H29123 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:17:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA08566 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08895 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202272207.RAA08895@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > B. Proper form > The only correct form is the single word "Pass" or > the two words "No bid". I thought something close to this used to be in the Laws, but I cannot find it going back to 1975. Does anyone know where it used to be, or is my memory about it wrong? (Am I remembering a mere ACBL regulation, perhaps?) If something like the above is added, it will need to be qualified with "oral bidding" and presumably translated in non-English lawbooks. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 09:43:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RMglS03587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:42:47 +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 g1RMgdH03563 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:42:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA10122 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA09095 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:32:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202272232.RAA09095@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Session breaks > are for wimps who don't have the stamina to play 96 boards straight > through, and are entirely artificial breaks in the context of the whole > event. Sessions are defined by the SO for whatever reasons seem good at the time. (With some SO's, this may be equivalent to "arbitrary.") Indemnity points depends on the session, not the whole event (L88). You can argue that a different rule would be better, but I don't see how you can disagree what the present rule actually says. > From: "Sven Pran" > An empty cell means that we have a board not (yet) been played by a > participant (for whatever reason). But even an empty cell contains a > value - the value zero - the value for which so many arguments have > been presented here. This is not true at all. A value zero and an empty cell are two entirely different things. Some computers may treat "empty" as equivalent to zero for some purposes, but one need not do so. You might want to experiment with Excel's AVG() function, for example. None of this says what to do with scheduled byes. That too is a matter for SO regulation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 09:46:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RMkTf04315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:46:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RMkKH04294 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:46:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA10281 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:36:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA09129 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:36:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:36:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202272236.RAA09129@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Although this seems to be a very easy ruling, non-Australians, not > knowing our regulations, would be unable to rule as above. This "alert after the auction" would be called a "post-alert" here in the ACBL. Yes, if 5C is supposed to be forcing, I should think passing it would require a post-alert, but as Peter says, one needs to know the regulations. David Burn's objection may depend on whether there is a requirement in this event for pairs to know their own methods. I'm sure there are such regulations in WBF championships, which require convention cards to be lodged in advance, but (except in the ACBL, as Ed found) there might be no such requirement in a typical club 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 Thu Feb 28 09:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RMwNp06584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:58:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RMwDH06558 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:58:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g1QN4Xo15878 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:04:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:45:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <01a601c1bfac$76da9080$41053dd4@b0e7g1> >Ben Schelen wrote: > >> > > Indeed if the regulation foresees that they get Av+ for >> > > those boards, that means 72%. >> > > But I don't know what the regulations said, and if they >> > > indeed said this, they are not fair. >> > It does not appear manifestly unfair to me. It just feels right that >> > any score awarded reflects the current session rather than many. With >> > two "equal" sessions it seems reasonable to average the percentages >> > obtained in each to get an overall score. >> > >> >> BS It seems illegal (one session Law88) > >I think you misunderstood me. I felt that adjusted scores, if required, >should be factored into the session in which they occur. That gives a >percentage for the given session - to which I can then add the percentage >for a second session (containing no adjusted scores) to get an overall >average. > I believe this to be entirely wrong. [We'll discuss it in the car tomorrow. Can you be at the Wood by 645 if possible as their side has journeys to make too.] >For once it seems that the laws offer no option but to do what feels >right. I didn't look at the laws initially since Herman had indicated it >was a matter regulation, rather than law. > >Having read law 88 I can see that "60% of the matchpoints available to him >on that board" generates a value of precisely 0 on a scheduled sit-out. > >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 Thu Feb 28 10:34:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RNYO413127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:34:24 +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-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 g1RNYEH13096 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:34:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.37.93] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16gDQv-000JKz-00; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:24:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c1bfe6$5605f9a0$5d25e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , "Peter Gill" , "bridge-laws" , "alain gottcheiner" References: <200202271755.RAA25125@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:24:14 -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 Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > > I'm with Peter here. The error is not with L72 nor > with L27 but with L18. We have L61-64 dealing > with revokes, but we also have L44C telling us to > follow suit. We also have L19A1 and L19B1 > telling us when doubles and redoubles are legal. > +=+ I would suggest the following steps in reading the law book are relevant to the question that has emerged: (1) From the 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws' we learn that the laws "are designed to define correct procedure". (2) From the definitions we learn that an irregularity is "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws". (3) Whilst Law 27A says that an insufficient bid "may be treated as legal" it does not suggest that it is inherently legal. Indeed the phrase ('treated as') used in 27A indicates rather the opposite. Law 27B1(a) makes it clear that the insufficient bid is an irregularity. (4) An insufficient bid is, therefore, a deviation from correct procedure. (5) Law 72A1 requires that duplicate bridge tournaments be played in strict accordance with the laws. (6) Law 72B2 tells us that a player must not infringe a law intentionally. The player who deliberately makes an insufficient bid is guilty of an offence because he is intentionally deviating from correct procedure contrary to Law 72A1 and in violation of Law 72B2. But, yes, I think it would be a good idea to make a more open statement on the point in the next promulgation of revised 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 Thu Feb 28 10:42:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1RNgRA14702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:42:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1RNgHH14671 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:42:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (209-193-12-176-dial-en7.fai.acsalaska.net [209.193.12.176]) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1RNWXf29549 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:32:33 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <3C7D6C67.4040302@ptialaska.net> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:31:51 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: Poor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CDA4C.8996A7E4@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > >> >>3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C." >> > > 3C, if pass-or-correct, means "I want to play 3C *if you have clubs*." > I should have been more precise. What you've written is true, in other words "I am willing to play in clubs," and has no other meaning whatsoever. Especially since I may also be willing to play in spades, hearts, or diamonds. BTW, a zero-meaning bid, like the completion of a transfer, also does not convey a "meaning other than willingness...." The fact that I may be 0-6-6-1 is a red herring. I may have a void in the suit I am willing to play in, but that does not make my call conventional. I partner opens 3S, I might raise to 4 with void AKxx AQxxx Axxx. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 12:38:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1S1bii04931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:37:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1S1bZH04905 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:37:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP7.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.7]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06078; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:27:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:27:50 -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) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020227153301.00b12b90@pop.starpower.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landeau wrote: Overall scores across multi-section fields in which different sections played completely different boards used to be routine, before the advent of duplication from computer-generated hand records. It is a practice which is regarded (in the ACBL at least) as acceptable based on precedent, and I'm confident that it's still being done somewhere in ACBL-land. _______________________________________________________________________ Yes it is in my club for regular games (30 to 36 tables) and in all clubs around. Here, in "normal" games, players want to play as boards as they can and hate duplicating. Though, all section have the same masterpoints limits (stratified games). The highest percentage is the overall winner. No player told me this type of competition is not fair. We duplicate boards for championships and special competitions only. 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 Feb 28 14:39:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1S3cOw23971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:38:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.84] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1S3cEH23950 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:38:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu ([68.55.147.239]) by femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20020228032830.DIYX26649.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu> for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:28:30 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227221514.00a2a5f0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:25:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem In-Reply-To: <3C7CAC4B.9030202@village.uunet.be> References: <000701c1babf$94211340$c716b9d2@laptop> <3C753079.6020305@village.uunet.be> <003f01c1bb03$36bf7ea0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C757105.8070109@village.uunet.be> <001101c1bb2e$9aab6ca0$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C760222.9000109@village.uunet.be> <002f01c1bb7f$7c802c60$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <3C7A1CBA.9090601@village.uunet.be> <3C7A3BE8.5000407@village.uunet.be> <000b01c1be0d$67cc9e80$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <005501c1be17$71228ee0$3e4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <002101c1be1a$75627b20$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <000b01c1be1d$a36ddde0$2aa47ad5@pbncomputer> <000c01c1bf60$05597940$6252e150@dodona> <003501c1bf6d$c82fc980$6700a8c0@alcatelno> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:52 AM 2/27/02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >when dealing with swiss-type events, there is a need for a particular >regulation covering sit-outs. > >That regulation is IMHO best the following : > >Award the sit-outs 50% (so that they do not suffer from too strong an >opponent in some later round) >and give them an additional 10% at the end of the tournament. > >These rules can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to pairs and teams >tournaments alike.. The ACBL rule for a forfeit is that the team winning by forfeit is initially awarded a win by 3 IMPs (12 VP's on the 20-VP scale). At the end of the event, the team then receives the highest of the artificial score, the average VP's in the matches it actually played, and the average VP's given up by the forfeiting team in the matches it actually played. The first two options are the equivalent of average-plus; the third deals with a phenomenon which is more common in Swisses than in pairs events, in which average-plus is not fair because the opposition is very weak. If a team with 20 VP's in its first four matches returns late from the dinner break and forfeits its fifth match, the team set to play it in the fifth round will be disappointed with only 12 VP's as it ends up with 96 for the day. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 17:25:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1S6OW626828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:24:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g1S6ONH26808 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:24:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16gHIU-000GU7-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:52:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: <021e01c1bf9e$aea87c60$6f8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020227163215.00a44260@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020227163215.00a44260@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 >AG : how easier it would be with the WBC CC ! Why do so few countries use it ? Perhaps because not every country considers it easy. It was legal to use it in many EBU events for some years, but was banned in all but one event from 1998. I really do think it is poorer than the EBU 20A for all events except the top ones, where more room is useful for detail. -- 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 Feb 28 18:39:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1S7d5t09580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:39:05 +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-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 g1S7cuH09557 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:38:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.72.89] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gL03-000EIJ-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:29:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1c02a$0cf92ae0$5948e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200202272236.RAA09129@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:14:38 -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: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] > > David Burn's objection may depend on whether > there is a requirement in this event for pairs to > know their own methods. I'm sure there are > such regulations in WBF championships, > +=+ Why 'sure'? The WBF CoP stands part of the WBF regulations; it says "the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention,misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated." There is relevant comment in the WBFLC minutes of 30th Oct 2001. In 1994 the WBFLC took the view it could not envisage a law that would punish accidental infringement of a partnership agreement but find a deliberate infringement acceptable. It is true the subject is under examination and will be looked at by the drafting subcommittee. In the meantime Law 75 remains as it was published in 1997. ~ 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 Feb 28 19:34:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1S8Xqh18646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:33:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1S8XgH18628 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:33:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48539.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.155]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g1S8No802509 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:23:50 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7DE936.2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:24:22 +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: [BLML] Enjoy References: <20020227134302-r01010800-66c2853a-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 (S) warned us ! Ed Reppert wrote: > On 2/27/02 at 1:51 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > > >>Well, doesn't 3Cl also show spade non-preference ? >>"I know a convention when I see one" >>The fact that a particular call can be passed out by partner >>does not in itself mean that it is non-conventional. >> > > Playing a simple natural system, the bidding goes 1S-1NT-2C-2S, opponents > passing throughout. 2S says "I prefer spades over clubs". IOW, club > "non-preference". Am I to infer that 2S in this auction is conventional? > Well, there is a subtle difference. This partner has told his hand (blacks), and based on what you know, you decide 2Sp is the best contract. The other partner has told his hand (blacks or reds) and based on that, you decide that if it's blacks, clubs are to be preferred to spades. We already know it is very hard to define conventional, and probably "I know it when I see it" is the best. > 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/ > > -- 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 Feb 28 22:10:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SB7lK17813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:07:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SB7cH17792 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:07:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1SAvrr27072 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:57:53 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3C7DE936.2@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > We already know it is very hard to define conventional, and > probably "I know it when I see it" is the best. Tend to agree. But there are some things around 2-way bids that we can perhaps use as guidelines. When I have played such conventions the responses to the original call have fallen into two categories - "Showing" (usually natural because they are showing the suit called), and "asking" - (including waiting, relay, pass/correct). In the latter case I have no doubt that such calls are an intrinsic part of the original "convention". A similar principle may be attached to a transfer completion. While we're here can't we change 27B so that the "penalty" is UI based rather than an enforced pass which would make the distinction much less important. 2N 2H (transfer, correctable to 3H still tfer) would actually give less info to the 2N opener than would 2N 2S (natural, corrected to 3S). 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 Feb 28 22:38:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SBcAK22746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:38:10 +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-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 g1SBbwH22715 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:37:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gOjI-0001Gg-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:28:12 +0000 Message-ID: <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:45:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? References: <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-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 2/27/02 at 4:57 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > >> Law 27 Establishes that a bid must be sufficient to be legal > >It doesn't say that, that I can see. I do not think it does. However, what does the word sufficient mean? If a bid is insufficient it seems to me to be unacceptable as a bid from the use of language. In other words, the Law defines what is insufficient or sufficient, and it is left to the normal meaning of those words to decide that what is insufficient is unacceptable. -- 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 Feb 28 22:38:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SBc7t22734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:38:07 +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-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 g1SBbtH22702 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:37:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gOjI-0001Gf-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:28:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:40:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <01C1BFBC.8303B660.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1BFBC.8303B660.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes > > >Todd wrote: AFAIK, the only Swiss events requiring a sitout are those where >all >>contestants are met. When not all contestants will meet, you can run a >>round robin and avoid the sitout. > >DWS asked: > How do you run a round robin in a Swiss Pairs? > >_____________________________________________ > >David, > >By Round Robin I think Todd is referring to what you and I know as a 'Triangle' >Match. Yes, Fearghal, I understand that, but you do not have triangles in Swiss Pairs. Swiss Teams, yes. -- 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 Feb 28 22:58:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SBvuq26207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:57:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SBvjH26173 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:57:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1SBm0A03028 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:48:00 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:48 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] 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 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <20020227124500-r01010800-1aded3df-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Ed wrote: > I agree. However, the ACBL General Conditions of Contest say this: > > A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in > probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if > their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when > and how to use a convention that was employed I really don't think this rule can be used against novices. I have played against novices and the concept of "probable (to be expected) auctions" just doesn't apply to them. 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 Feb 28 23:22:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SCM2C00537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:22:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SCLqH00518 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:21:53 +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 NAA29535; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:11:16 +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 NAA28239; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:12:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228130953.00a324a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:16:08 +0100 To: vlnokmgn@videotron.ca, "adam@irvine.com" , "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g1SCLtH00526 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:39 27/02/2002 -0500, vlnokmgn@videotron.ca wrote: >Haven't we been overlooking the one Law that it seems to me is designed to >just specifically deal with intentionally insufficient bids? Laws >23? Damaging Enforced Pass? > >Touché away! AG : nice try. However, L23 deals with a pass following an infraction ; and the question that caused this threat is that an insufficient bid is not per se an infraction ; it may only be made one, according to the opponents' will. Of course, we all think of it as an infraction, and as I wrote before it would be easier if it was registered as one, albeit obliterable. Also, remember that L23 deals with infractions "that could have benn intentional" (in the spirit of L72B1), not to infractions proved to have been intentional. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 28 23:31:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SCVXQ02447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:31:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SCVNH02415 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:31:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-157-99.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.157.99] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16gPZ3-0004cD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c1c052$2da4a260$639d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:19:13 -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 DWS wrote: > However, what does the word sufficient mean? If a bid is insufficient > it seems to me to be unacceptable as a bid from the use of language. In > other words, the Law defines what is insufficient or sufficient, and it > is left to the normal meaning of those words to decide that what is > insufficient is unacceptable. Eh? Since the LHO of an insufficient bidder can accept the bid (L27A), I do not see that it can be regarded as "unacceptable". 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/